Jump to content

Talk:Creationism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

The creationists' points-of-view should dominate the lead section of Creationism

<<Therefore, my first choice of wording would be along the lines of:
Creationism is the movement that proposes that the universe and all life were created by deliberate act of God as described in the Bible.>>

In my opinion, movement is a great improvement in accuracy over belief--because I think movement captures both the idea and the organization that promotes the idea. Also, I think Mr. Monk's suggestion is a good one: "Creationism is the religious doctrine that . . . ." What came to my mind on reading both of your summary statements was this possibility:

"Creationism is the movement and religious doctrine promoting the idea that . . . ."

Your phrase "Creationism is the movement that . . ." may be simpler and more accessible to the reader.

Is there any significant view within creationism that would feel a bias against them in the statement "Creationism is the movement that ... "? Perhaps a significant portion of creationists might not like to associate themselves with the Organization of a movement. Also, in your opinion, is there a significant view within creationism that would feel that the phrase "as described in the Bible" is biased against them? For example, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica article on "creationism,"

"Scientific creationists believe that a creator made all that exists, but they may not hold that the Genesis story is a literal history of that creation."

Would the statement Creationism is the movement that proposes that the universe and all life were created by deliberate act of God as described in the Bible be biased against such scientific creationists? ---Rednblu 17:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding whether any creationists would object to "Creationism is the movement that...", I can't really say, other than to offer the opinion that I don't think they would.
Regarding whether any creationists would object to "..as described in the Bible", I suppose it depends on who is included in that category. Intelligent Design people don't refer to themselves as "creationists", but if you include them, then I guess that some of them would disagree with this bit. Apart from them, creationists pretty well all agree with what the Bible says, they just disagree on what it means!
Philip J. Rayment 12:53, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. Are you saying that generally each creationist reads the Bible account of the creation as describing the events in their particular version of creation? Hence, the Bible account is given wide interpretation by creationists in a full range from those who believe that creation occurred in 1) six twenty-four UTC hour days to the extreme of 2) God created only the first bacterium of life from which all creatures alive today evolved according to natural selection. If that is so, in my opinion that would be important to say, perhaps in the second sentence. ---Rednblu 16:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In principle, yes. My caveats are:

  • To be pedantic, it's a bit extreme to talk about "twenty-four UTC hour days". I've never heard of a creationist insisting that the days were exactly 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 60.00 seconds long. Rather, I've often heard them refer to "six solar days" or similar, to allow for the fact that Earth's rotational speed may have varied slightly and therefore the original days may have been different to modern days by, say, a number of seconds.
  • It depends on who is included in the term "creationist". As I said, ID people don't use that term of themselves, and I wonder if it would be fair to include theistic evolutionists (the other extreme you mention) in the term. Even though they believe that God created the universe and the first life, I don't believe that the term "creationist" is really used by them nor about them. I more had in mind people that reject evolution, such as progressive creationists, gap-theory followers, etc. that don't necessarily agree on the meaning or the length of the creation-week days.

Philip J. Rayment 12:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you advocating that "creationist" is a self-proclaimed designation? It may be better to adopt a "neutral" point of view to define the term and apply it whether or not the person with the defined point of view uses it to describe themselves. I offer as an example the term "materialist." I don't think I have ever referred to myself as a "materialist"--because the term does not express the nuances of how I think of myself. Nevertheless, the term "materialist" is regularly used--and fairly--to distinguish my writing and thought from "dualist" or "idealist."

The term "evolutionist" offers another useful example. It is useful in the Creationism article to use the term "evolutionist" even though there are few molecular biologists who would refer to themselves as "evolutionist"; Charles Darwin used the term "evolutionist" repeatedly to refer to himself and to other "naturalists" who were convinced that natural selection explained the Origin of Species. Sixth edition of Origin of Species that you can scan for Darwin's uses of the phrases "admitted by most evolutionists" and "admitted by all evolutionists."

You make valid points regarding the use of terms. I actually wasn't totally advocating that; I was being deliberately vague, pointing out that there are different ways of looking at this, although I suppose I was leaning a little the way you said. However (to still sit on the fence), here are some further thoughts.

  • I have no problem with using a term of people that they don't use of themselves, if that term is appropriate. If fact I know I do this myself in other areas (e.g. calling atheism a religion, even though I know most atheists don't consider atheism a religion).
  • We still need to consider the normal use of the word. With regard to theistic evolutionists, I didn't just say that they don't use it of themselves, but also that others don't use of them.
  • We need to consider people's sensibilities. In this case, if creationist is used the way that I described, then it may be understandable that others who believe something different didn't like being lumped into that category.
  • If we include ID within creationism, then we cannot describe creationism as "... as described in the Bible", as ID poeople don't necessarily go along with that.
  • If we include theistic evolution within creationism, then we cannot describe creationism in terms that indicate creation as distinct from evolution (which the article doesn't do at the moment), nor even as a "movement", because the "creationism movement" is really a reaction to uniformitariansm and evolution, both of which theistic evolutionists accept.

So I'm still fence-sitting. Back to you for further comment.
Philip J. Rayment 03:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well said. I am listening. Wouldn't you want the Creationism page to have a short paragraph on all the varieties you mention above--with a break-out subpage for the details--similar in structure to the Evolution page? ---Rednblu 05:59, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Summary statements of participants in the above discussion

Summary of the issue:

What is the best single word or phrase to describe "Creationism"? Should the word "theory", which has multiple meanings be used?


Summary statement of FOo:


Summary statement of FeloniousMonk:

My position remains that the current opening sentence "Creationism is the belief that the ..." is accurate. It correctly identifies creationism as a belief. Any meaningful sense of the word theory implies codified sets of useful knowledge, which creationism is not. It should be noted that those who are making the argument for the use of theory to describe creationism are making a special pleading.

Historically and here on wikipedia creationists consistently insist that creationism is an equally plausible alternative to scientific explanations and that such scientific explanations are wrong. By positioning its assertions in the realm of science and opposing science, Creationism should then have to meet the same standard as science when identifying its claims or itself as a "theory." Few would assert that the geocentric model is a theory in any sense, yet actually it is supported by empirical evidence unlike creationism, for which there is no empirical evidence. This illustrates clearly the problem of associating creationism with even the idea of theory, even its loosest sense.

As theory is defined on wikipedia, creationism fails to qualify as a theory because: 1) is inconsistent with any pre-existing theory that has withstood verification experimentally or in reality, 2) is not supported by any credible evidence but rather rests on a single foundation of magical thinking, 3) cannot be verified or tested, but must be accepted on faith, leaving it open to unresolvable disputes regarding interpretation and its nature, 4) makes no predictions that might someday be used to prove or disprove its claim, or those of any of the alternative explanations for the same data.

Of the vernacular definition of theory as defined on Dictionary.com, only the last, most fully deprecated definition provided can be said to apply to creationism. It is clearly not the most common usage of the term and hence not sufficient to justify its use in an introductory statement to a encyclopedia entry. By the majority of the above criteria creationism clearly does not qualify as a theory, yet it fully qualifies as a belief as it is defined by both wikipedia and dictionary.com

Additionally, the following leading scientific organizations have all issued statements that creationism is not a scientific theory:

The constant drumming insistence of creationists that their belief is a theory here and elsewhere itself is significant enough to justify including a mention of it in the article. I propose an outline of their justifications followed by objections/criticisms of those claims.

I do not support Pjacobi's compromise solution on the grounds it would be misleading and confusing to readers who may not understand the nuances and distinction it makes. His proposed sentence is confusing because it is not explicit; it requires of the reader an understanding of the differences and the significance of the differences between "theory" in the sense of a nonacademic belief or notion, and an actual theory, without providing an explanation of those differences. An good encyclopedic entry should present explicit statements, not implicit statements, ill-defined, nuanced statements or tautological statements.

Frankly, the introductory statement is not explicit enough... this is a more accurate statement and and used in the media: "Creationism is the religious doctrine that all living things on Earth were created separately, in more or less their present form, by a supernatural creator, as stated in the Bible; the precise beliefs of different creationist groups vary widely." I propose that this more accurate description identifying creationism as a "religious doctrine" be used in place of belief or theory.--FeloniousMonk 00:47, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Summary statement of Philip J. Rayment:

  • The competing origins models are creation and evolution. The competing philosophies are creationism and evolutionism.
  • "Belief" is an accurate word for both creation and evolution (e.g. one of the definitions FeloniousMonk linked to says a degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence). But "belief" is often understood to be only to do with things that cannot be verified, and for that reason I expect evolutionists would not like evolution called a "belief", so to call creation a belief would be just as misleading.
  • "Theory", used in the scientific sense, is equally applicable to creation and evolution (I have shown above, for example, how one can make predictions from the creation model, and how it is therefore potentially falsifiable). The only sense in which it is not scientific is that it refers to unique past events which are therefore not observable nor reproducable, but this same criticism applies to evolution.
  • However, as some evolutionists understandably object to "theory", and creationists similarly object to "belief", I propose that we use neither of these terms, but find a term that both sides can agree to.
  • As this article is titled Creationism, I propose that it be about the phenomenon of the apologetics movement arguing for belief in creation and opposing belief in evolution, primarily (but not exclusively) as expressed in the last 150-200 years in reaction to uniformitarianism and evolution. Therefore, my first choice of wording would be along the lines of:
Creationism is the movement that proposes that the universe and all life were created by deliberate act of God as described in the Bible.
  • If others disagree about the 'movement' aspect, then my second choice of wording would be:
Creationism is the idea that the universe and all life were created by deliberate act of God as described in the Bible.


Summary statement of Rednblu:

I support Pjacobi's suggestion above that the first sentence of the Creationism page should be
Creationism is the theory, however not in the scientific understanding of "theory", that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible. (Pjacobi 21:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC))
because Pjacobi's suggestion is supported by standard English dictionaries and encyclopedias including but not limited to
  • Encyclopædia Britannica ("theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing (ex nihilo).")
  • Buch, Carl W., Hagenbach's (C. R.) Compendium of the history of doctrines tr. 1847 ("The theory designated Creationism..was now more precisely defined.")
  • Oxford English Dictionary, 3d edition ("The theory which attributes the origin of matter, the different species of animals and plants, etc., to ‘special creation’ (opposed to evolutionism).")


Summary statement of Hob Gadling:

I am definitely against "theory" and don't particularly like "belief". "Movement" is better than both, but I guess "point of view" is the obvious choice. Hob 21:24, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Ed Poor butts in

I didn't participate in the above discussion, but I think I'm the contributor of the disputed sentence. (Let me take a moment and *blush* if I'm not ;-)

Here is what I'd like to see now, in view of the recent, er, unpleasantness:

"Creationism is the belief that the universe, the planet earth and all life on the earth was created as deliberate act by a divine being.

A later sentence -- possibly even in the same intro paragraph -- would identify the religious believers espousing this view, why they believe it, and some important variations of the belief. If this is too much for the lead paragraph, trim it and allude to details to follow:

Jews and Christians cite the Old Testament account in Genesis as authority for their faith: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ... God created man in his image ... male and female He created them." (Genesis, chapter one from memory, so please correct the wording)

Whether the view should be called a "belief" or a "theory" is another question. If the term theory is disputed by us contributors, just use view as a catch-all term. I think most of us can agree on belief simply because a lot of people believe this viewpoint. We could also mention somewhere in the article the movement which is trying to get the view re-classified as a scientific theory (see creation science or scientific creationism). Note that the intelligent design movement is also trying to get scientists to agree to use the term hypothesis in a this context. --Uncle Ed 15:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--- End copy of contents from /What is wrong with the lead section

History of Creationism

Summary of the issue:

One point of view:

  • Darwin should be mentioned on the Creationism page because Darwin's ideas gave rise to various compromise ideas in modern creationism (day-age, gap theory, theistic evolution, etc.) and changed creation from being the dominant paradigm to almost wiping it out, before it started to claw its way back.

Another point of view:

  • In the Creationism page, those interruptions about "Darwin and Darwin's ideas" are only non-sequitur context-driven popup ads for Evolution; Darwin was not an influential creationist; Darwin's ideas did not change the thinking of creationism; even after Darwin, creationism continued to insert the same pre-Darwin day-age, gap theory, and theistic evolution interpretations of the Bible as axioms that Occam's razor proves to be unnecessary.



Please post discussion on this topic at /History of Creationism



--- Begin copy of discussion from /History of Creationism

History of creationism

I removed the reference to Darwin introducing natural selection as it was described by Edward Blyth (a creationist!), 25 years before Origin of the Species. I also removed the references to Darwin not intending to oppose religious accounts but rather opposing Lamarck, as I don't believe it to be true. Stephen Jay Gould claimed that Darwin did intend to oppose the biblical creation story, and as I understand it Darwin implicitly accepted Lamarck's ideas. Philip J. Rayment 12:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, that reference to Darwin does not belong there at all. Darwin was not a creationist; he did not contribute to creationism; he did not change creationism. Darwin is irrelevant to the History of creationism--just as Jesus Christ is irrelevant to the History of Judaism. That insertion of Darwin into the History of creationism is only an artifact of the constant evolutionist nuking of the Creationism page--interrupting the explication of the theory with advertisements for motorcars that have nothing to do with the theory.

The format of the Evolution page is about right. Everything about Darwin and evolution should be moved to a minor section "Creationism and Darwin" that would be the structural and logical equivalent to the current "Evolution and religion" section of the Evolution page--presenting the most significant competitive theories. ---Rednblu 17:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe that it is vital to refer to Darwin in the history of Creationist thought. Creationism as a movement arose in reaction to Darwinism so of course it is relevant to consider it. My understanding is that Darwin hesitated to publish his theories because of the outcry that he knew they would cause. he was only persuaded to publish when he realised that Wallace had developed a similar theory and if he didn't publish he wouldn't get the credit for all his work. Michael Glass 03:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did Darwin's ideas change "creationism" at all? Isn't it still faith rather than science both before and after Darwin?

To the extent that Darwin's ideas gave rise to the movement known as "Creationism", it is appropriate to mention Darwin and his ideas. Philip J. Rayment 15:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
<<Creationism as a movement arose in reaction to Darwinism so of course it is relevant to consider it.>>

I take that as a hypothesis. And I am more interested in the nature of proof for that hypothesis than I am interested in whether your hypothesis is right or wrong. First, I would look for counter-examples--because why waste time proving A when there is a simple counter-example to A? :) So suppose I could show you in Darwin's own letters that the Creationists around him so terrified him that for years he could not bring himself to publish his Origin of Species. Would that be a counter-example to your above hypothesis?

<<My understanding is that Darwin hesitated to publish his theories because of the outcry that he knew they would cause.>>

Are you sure you want to say that?--because it seems to me that you are saying there was a very active Creationism movement going before Darwin ever drew his first breath, a very active Creationism movement that had Darwin in such hesitation that he postponed publishing his own theories in opposition to the Creationism movement--even when he knew he was right--because of the outcry he feared that would erupt from the very active, very organized, and long-established Creationism movement that had him under control--until he got the courage to stand up to the Creationist movement that held him back. ---Rednblu 23:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course there were people who believed in creationism (theology) before Darwin. But that wasn't a Creationist movement, there didn't need to be a creationist movement because before Darwin nobody could really conceive of an alternative to the creation hypothesis. This article is about the creationism movement, not the theology. The creationism movement is a group specifically devoted to obfuscating Darwinian science and philosophy. --Steinsky 23:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me introduce you to the Creationism page from which I quote the first sentence: "Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible." I have carefully Wikified links to the nouns in that sentence so that you can point out to me which of the nouns in that definition did not exist before Darwin. Maybe you want to write a new page Creationism (movement)? But your whole conception is as wrong and as myopic as saying that there wasn't a Christianity movement before محمد; "the Christianity movement is a group specifically devoted to obfuscating Muslim science and philosophy." ---Rednblu 00:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When did the "creationism controversy" begin? With Democritus or with Darwin?

And let me introduce you to the line imediately above that:
This article describes the creationism controversy.
We don't need to create another page, we already have the page and it's this one. You're getting the purpose of this page confused with the Creationism (theology) page. --Steinsky 00:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nope. You are picking a very unrealistic view of how old the "creationism controversy" is. I have in hand a translation of a gentleman who lived before Christ who had his own movement and explanation in controversy with the creationists. He wrote:

Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.
Fear holds dominion over mortality
Only because, seeing in land and sky
So much the cause whereof no wise they know,
Men think Divinities are working there.
Meantime, when once we know from nothing still
Nothing can be create, we shall divine
More clearly what we seek: those elements
From which alone all things created are,
And how accomplished by no tool of Gods.

And this gentleman writing before Christ proceeds to lay out a series of explanations that learned men knew was right: Who would create the Creator? Lifeforms had metamorphosed slowly under natural forces into other forms--and eventually into the living animals around us. And there was no need for a Creator to intervene. Certainly, this gentleman living before Christ was not even close yet to guessing at natural selection, but he certainly opposed creationism, and the creationism movement surely condemned him as a heretic and likewise those who similarly tried to figure out the details of how we could metamorphose over many generations from beasts to men. Aren't you interested in the facts? ---Rednblu 02:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm aware that there were people before Darwin who questioned the logic of creation myths, but before Darwin there was no organised "creationist movement" like we see today. People simply believed and creation and since nobody who questioned it had a better idea, it was no difficulty dismissing the ideas. The controversy only really got started with Darwin, because Darwin could provide an alternative. That is why Darwin needs to be mentioned on this page, if only because his ideas definitely did change the creationism controversy. --Steinsky 02:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In what way do you think that Darwin's ideas changed the "creationism controversy"? Creationism continued to argue from the old-fashioned foundation of faith. Look at the facts. Do you mean to say that Darwin's ideas changed the "evolutionism controversy"? That is, probably you can find some writings of Thomas Huxley that support the idea that Darwin's ideas changed the "evolutionism controversy" by giving the evolutionists a hypothesis "to get hold of clear and definite conceptions which could be brought face to face with facts and have their validity tested." [1] But that did not change the "creationism controversy" one whit; the creationists still argued from faith and common sense--as they have for over two thousand years. ---Rednblu 03:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did Darwin's ideas cause Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design?

Darwin's ideas changed the "creationism controversy" in lots of ways, because they provided the first (and only) real alternative to creationism that anyone had come up with. This led to millions abandoning creationism, and the rise of Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design, are those not massive changes in the controversy for starters? It was only because of these alternative world views that any controversy (beyond the ocassional individual questioning a bit of logic) could get started, with a creationism movement directed against Darwinism. Perhaps you should state what you think the "creationism controversy" actually is, because I really can't see how anybody familiar with the controversy that I'm familiar with can fail to understand how Darwinism has been crucial in shaping it. --Steinsky 03:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
<<This led to millions abandoning creationism, and the rise of Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design, are those not massive changes in the controversy for starters?>>

Surely, you don't really think Old-Earth creationism and all of those other pretenses are "massive changes." They are just preacher homiletic tricks to package the same old faith. Do they look like science to you? Heaven help you if they do. They were around long before Darwin got into the act. These are all ancient ideas; they go back at least to the Greeks. But let's just take "modern" examples before Darwin. For example, around 1824 the Reverand William Buckland in introducing the first dinosaur fossil Megalosaurus already was interpreting the "days" of creation as "ages" in order to explain that there had been giant beasts around long before men appeared.

The idea that there had to be an Intelligent Designer was argued by William Paley as early as 1809. on-line text And Theistic Evolution was argued at least as early as an 1845 London Times article where a reviewer says about Reverand Buckland's 1836 Bridgewater Treatise that "his general conclusion being, that the present world was constructed out of the materials of a former one; that former one from the wreck of its predecessor; and so upwards, ad infinitum." (The London Times Monday, Jun 23, 1845; pg. 6; Issue 18957; col A) Darwin no more changed "creationism" than Lavoisier changed phlogiston theory; Darwin may have disproved "creationism" but he had negligible effect on the content of the "creationism" theory that he disproved. ---Rednblu 08:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not they are big changes in the creationist philosophy (I believe they are major changes in the way the world is viewed) [note I never mentioned they were anything like scientific, I have no idea where you got that idea from] they are a major part of the creationist movement today, and therefore they belong in an encyclopedia entry about creationism. The fact that preaching tactics like ID and OEC exist, that many people believe in them and that a major part of their remit is tackling perceived materialism and atheism in Darwinism, has to be covered in an encyclopedia entry on creationism. --Steinsky 17:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should "Creationism" be defined as a "movement" instead of a "belief"?

<<Let me introduce you to the Creationism page from which I quote the first sentence: "Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible." .... Maybe you want to write a new page Creationism (movement)?>>

Actually, after logging off last night, I had the thought that instead of "belief", "view", "doctrine", or similar, perhaps the best wording is Creationism is the movement... I agree with Steinsky in that creationism as a movement only began as a response to Darwinism, and even though before that there were creationists, and debate about creation vs. something else, the word creationism was not used in that context. (Rednblu, did you look at these links--[2] [3] [4]-- that I previously included?)

So I guess the question is, should this article be about the creationism movement, that has existed for less than 200 years, or should it cover the entire history of debate about creation? I suggest that we concentrate on the creationism movement that was a response to Darwinism, but include a bit of "background" in the form of documenting some of the earlier debate.
Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<I suggest that we concentrate on the creationism movement that was a response to Darwinism, but include a bit of "background" in the form of documenting some of the earlier debate.>>

Perhaps the communism page is a good template. That is, as with the word "communism," once you have the definition for the "-ism," to be accurate, you will have to look back through history to the Greeks to see whether the "-ism" existed even back then. Your three links are interesting, but I don't see anything beginning just because someone put an English word on it. The mechanics of Magnetism are unchanged whether you apply the English word to the phenomenon or not--likewise for "creationism" or "communism." The English word is merely a label that you put on the phenomenon.

<<perhaps the best wording is Creationism is the movement...>>

Perhaps. But the driving force even in "creationism as movement" is not the movement. The driving force is the common sense appeal of the theory within "creationism." For example, the "theory" of "creationism" makes the best sense to people who are unconvinced by the facts that suggest evolution; 2000 years ago the "theory" of "creationism" made more sense to some people than the facts that supported the "theory" of "atomism". They look into their "heart of hearts," and they say "God did it" -- facts be damned. It is the same theory and it is the same appeal that has worked at least for the last 2000 years. ---Rednblu 16:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did Darwin's ideas change Creationism? Why mention Darwin in the Creationism page?

Nobody is denying that, you know, we are allowed to cover both pre- and post-Darwin Creationism in the article! You seem to be set on removing the section on the effects of Darwin's idea from the article, but only because the creationism philosophy existed before Darwin? --Steinsky 17:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<You seem to be set on removing the section on the effects of Darwin's idea from the article>>

Yes--because Darwin's idea had negligible effect on the "belief," "controversy," or "theory" of creationism. One of the predominant features of "creationism" is that it does not evolve in the face of the threats from the competition. Instead of evolving, "creationism" responds to science--not with science--but with repackages of the old faith and common sense arguments--churning through the same old set of 2000 year-old interpretations and fudges of Biblical text packaged in modern language.

Do you still contend that Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution, and Intelligent Design grew out of Darwin's idea? In my opinion, it would be accurate to pull all of the Darwin material into a section "Creationism disproved." But it is a disservice to the reader to embed the Creationism page with the current infestation of pop-up ads for Darwin's idea. The reader comes to Creationism in the hope of reading a clear exposition of "creationism." Why isn't the Evolution page a sufficient advertisement for "evolution"? ---Rednblu 18:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You think these pages are advertising Darwin's ideas? I still contend that the OEC, TE and ID exist as reponses to Darwinism, why would I change my mind, you have provided no evidence to the contrary? --Steinsky 18:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What in Intelligent Design is not just homiletic repackaging of William Paley's 1809 book Natural Theology? Notice, I am giving you an on-line link to the actual text. In my understanding, homiletics is the kind of repackaging of the Bible lesson that a good pastor does in giving modern stories and examples to elucidate the underlying dogma of what he or she is trying to get across to those sitting in the Sunday church pews. ---Rednblu 19:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I've come across the word before, you appear right that ID is homiletics, but my point is that it is a significant example of homiletics because:

  1. It has repackaged the argument from design in a way to present it as a [apparently] scientific alternative to Darwinism.
  2. It is a recently formed creationist movement that has a significant 'contemporary following. This is the major point: the contemporary creationist movement is united against Darwin.

Steinsky 19:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would you agree with the following?

  1. Intelligent design is not science, so the "creationism movement" was not affected by the science in Darwin's idea.
  2. The "creationism movement" displays repeated ignorance of what Darwin's idea really was; so when they unite, they cannot be uniting against Darwin's actual idea. ---Rednblu 20:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  1. ID is not science, but it is dressed up as science because the creatonism movement was affected by the fact that it felt threatened by the science in Darwin's ideas.
  2. Many creationists show an ignorance of the details of Evolution (both Darwin's ideas and post-Darwin detals), but the controversy that they have built is described as Creation vs Evolution. Perhaps I should have said that the movement is united against Darwinism, but obviously Darwin's ideas are still central to that. --Steinsky 20:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  1. ID is as much science as evolution is. It is studying the evidence and offering an explanation for that evidence.
  2. Many in the creation movement know as much about evolution as the next man, or the next scientist. In fact many of them were evolutionists originally, and in some cases actually studied and/or taught evolution. And in my observation, creationists know far more about evolution than evolutionists know about creation, which is consistent with the fact that most creationists get taught evolution, but very few evolutionists ever get taught creation.
    Philip J. Rayment 16:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<For example, the "theory" of "creationism" makes the best sense to people who are unconvinced by the facts that suggest evolution; 2000 years ago the "theory" of "creationism" made more sense to some people ...>>

This may be just semantics, perhaps, but maybe it illustrates some of the disagreement. I would have written that sentence (without the quotes) as "For example, the theory of creation makes the best sense to people who are unconvinced by the facts that suggest evolution; 2000 years ago the theory of creation made more sense to some people...". Creation is the idea/theory/model, creationism is the movement. By the way Rednblu, thanks for fixing those links.

<<Darwin's idea had negligible effect on the "belief," "controversy," or "theory" of creationism.>>

It, along with uniformitarian geology, had quite a big effect. They gave rise to various compromise ideas (day-age, gap theory, theistic evolution, etc.) and changed creation from being the dominant paradigm to almost wiping it out, before it started to claw its way back.

<<One of the predominant features of "creationism" is that it does not evolve in the face of the threats from the competition. Instead of evolving, "creationism" responds to science--not with science--but with repackages of the old faith and common sense arguments--churning through the same old set of 2000 year-old interpretations and fudges of Biblical text packaged in modern language.>>

It didn't evolve because it didn't believe in evolution! (sorry). It did change, and it does respond with science (as well as Scripture). They are certainly not the same old arguments (some may be), but there are a whole lot of new argument used.
Philip J. Rayment 16:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<[Darwin's idea], along with uniformitarian geology, had quite a big effect. They gave rise to various compromise ideas (day-age, gap theory, theistic evolution, etc.)

Can you get a copy of Reverand William Buckland's 1836 Bridgewater Treatise? I once had a link to an on-line copy; I would give you the link, but the site disappeared. In my opinion, Buckland sketched out the logic of day-age, gap theory, and theistic evolution before he ever read Darwin. And Buckland published those pieces of creationism theory before Darwin returned from his Beagle voyages. Of course, Buckland did not talk about how God guided natural selection, but he talked about how God guided a series of extinctions of life and how God built the next set of creatures from the fragments of the prior creatures, starting with an earth that had no creatures, then microscopic creatures, then vast dinosaurs--like the Megalosaurus that Reverand Buckland himself introduced to the science world--and finally, according to Buckland's 1836 treatise, God built man from the fragments of the creatures of the world in which no man existed. And Buckland wrote about all of that day-age, gap theory, and theistic evolution before Darwin got back from his Beagle voyages--so, in my opinion, Darwin had little effect on day-age, gap theory, and theistic evolution--except maybe give a trivial label--"natural selection"--to what it was that God guided. ---Rednblu 17:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, I didn't write exactly what I meant to write. Just as evolutionary ideas were around before Darwin, some (or all?) of these compromise ideas were around before Darwin also. But very few people accepted them. They only became widely accepted as a result of uniformitarianism and evolution becoming widely accepted. For example, the Gap Theory became popular as a result of it being promoted in the notes of the Schofield Reference Bible which was published in 1909 I think it was. Philip J. Rayment 18:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So were Darwin's ideas popularizers of "creationism"? Or were the writings of "creationists," such as Reverand Schofield popularisers of "evolutionism"? In any case, it seems to me that the creationism theory was firmly in place before Darwin. Perhaps, all of the references to Darwin should be moved to a section "People influential in popularizing the Gap Theory." ---Rednblu 19:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Back to the original question: Should Darwin be mentioned in the Creationism article?

Let's keep the debate focused and on topic. The original question and purpose of this Talk is the question: Should Darwin be Darwin be mentioned in the Creationism article? Remember wikipedia policy: "The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis."

My position is yes, mention of Darwin needs to remain as part of the creationism article.

A Creationism article without Darwin is like a Goliath article without David.--FeloniousMonk 09:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--- End copy of discussion from /History of Creationism

Dealing with campaigns promoting a POV slant

Myself and several others over the last three months have noted in the discussions here what appears to be a loosely organized campaign on this and related articles to work POV statements and positions into the articles by repeatedly using a particular set of tactics. The most common tactic seen has been to tie up those holding the consensus view that is unfavorable to a particular POV in endless debates over semantic arguments over common terms and drawn out debates on peripheral topics, all while ignoring or denying the existence of prevailing, well-established consensus opinions. The point of this tactic is to wear down and confuse any opposition and muddle the issues making the introduction of POV content easier. The use of this particular tactic violates the wikipedia policies on abusing Talk pages: "The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis." and that wikipedia is not a battleground for ideologies.

A quick perusal of the recent debate of whether creationism is a "theory" has good examples of the tactic being used, as will the User Talk and home pages of some of the participants.

I would like to see the opinions of users here and reach consensus as to how best to deal with campaigns bent on promoting a particular POV that can avoid the wikipedia mediation process.--FeloniousMonk 09:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are right, and I'm outing your nemesis

You are very right to bring this up Mr. Monk, more than you realize. I've been watching this ongoing drama for the last few weeks with some amusement, because obviously none of you have any idea who you are dealing with. Rednblu is contributing here under false pretenses: he is a notorious, longtime usenet creationist crank and crackpot. His pro-creationism, pro-religion, anti-evolution posts and rants comprise one of the most famous creationist campaigns in usenet history. Longtime users of talk.origins, alt.atheism, and alt.fan.publius are very familiar with his tactics there: flooding the boards with attempts to control debates and misrepresenting his own views and those who dare oppose him. He employs deceit, insults and ingratiating flattery in equal, copious portions. The time is here for the truth to be made known, you are facing one the usenet's most notorious POV creationist campaigners here, despite his claims to being a supporter evolution.

Some on the usenet cite an article claiming Rednblu is a grad student experiment or a bot, though there is an actual person that goes by his real name. Search Google Groups for Rednblu and read for yourselves, dear readers, then decide if his dishonesty and POV campaigning is something that you want to put up with here...--Logic hammer 03:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suspected as much. They appear to be one and the same, the positions, writing styles and phrases are identical. Taken with his actions to manipulate discussions here this just confirms it for me, Rednblu is conducting a POV campaign, apparently just as he has on the usenet. His disingenuousness and misleading statements are proof of not participating in Good Faith and against the policies.--FeloniousMonk 04:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will not speak as though Rednblu has been convicted or proved to be acting in Bad Faith. But your accusations are serious. If they are real (and let me be clear that I have enjoyed Rednblu's contributions), he must be disciplined formally. Tom - Talk 23:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:) Yes, but to keep from disturbing our neighbors, I suggest we should keep this side discussion on the User talk:Rednblu page. Accordingly, we ask FM to provide on the User talk:Rednblu page an example that we could discuss there. ---Rednblu 23:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Too bad we didn't benefit from Rednblu's concern for other users here when you ran three different Talk page discussions to absurd lengths in an effort to insert your POV into this article and Intelligent Design over the last three weeks...

To the extent that it is here now, the existing content of this discussion should stay where it is as it grew out of Rednblu's actions here and relates directly to his imputed objectivity and that of his propositions made here. Additional discussion can take place elsewhere on wikipedia as needed, including his and my User talk pages. Beyond the allegations made by Logic hammer above, I assert that Rednblu has been conducting a mendacious campaign rewrite the Creationism and Intelligent Design articles to suit his POV, to which end he is constantly restructuring/refactoring of Talk pages to favor your POV, continually resurrecting previously settled NPOV topics, and flooding Talk pages with long, drawn-out off topic debates, violated has willfully violated the BBC terms and conditions for the use of their content.--FeloniousMonk 23:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No I disagree that this needs to be kept private. "To keep from disturbing our neighbors" seems a blatant attempt to control the discussion, and in itself seems to me to be highly suspicious and perhaps even symptomatic of trolling. Perhaps he thinks that here, there will be less attention, but clearly you can't hide anything on wikipedia. I noticed this discussion, and others will as well. If this IS trolling, it will definitely be dealt with. On the other hand, if this is unfounded slander it will also be dealt with. Logic hammer might very well be (or equally NOT BE) the same person, in fact, as trolls often use sockpuppets with opposing views to bring more discussion, and argument, and as each 'side' increasingly supports the different troll POVs, the original trolls quietly slip away, leaving dissension and confusion behind. Not to point any fingers, as I am going offline, but I will be looking this over with great attention. Comments welcome here or my talk page.Pedant 21:27, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Majority NOT most, Not serious debate?! Needs to be defined

I would like to bring up a separate topic on the lead opening statements. As follows, in regards to this part,

""This debate is highly controversial and is not considered a serious debate by most scientists.""

I object to this part. It is not a neutral view. I propose the following modification. This debate is highly controversial as demonstrated by the famous scopes trial for inclusion of evolution into public schools, a majority of scientists do not consider creationism a scientific proposal but a religious doctrine therefore outside the scientific Method.

To say not a "serious" topic is bias IMHO. I think my description is more neutral and to the point, I mean come on "most"? a majority would be a better term. To the majority not serious? to minority is? I mean really I think my description is more to point and explains the "most" what most? a majority right? and this most what do they object to? no scientific method. Also it is a serious subject for debate legal and scientific as demonstrated in our courts, it needs a qualifier like I have about the scientific method. If it is not serious why the big deal in the courts? Vistronic --Vistronic 07:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This discussion probably belongs as part of the discussion at Talk:Creationism/What_is_wrong_with_the_lead_section.

Regarding the statement in the article: "This debate is highly controversial and is not considered a serious debate by most scientists." The statement is consistent with the wikipedia NPOV policy and the wikipedia style guide. It is a factually accurate statement, most scientists do not seriously consider creationism to be a serious alternative explanation to evolution, though proponents of creationism continue to insist that it is while denying science's primacy in the matter, thereby creating their own controversy. That the issue still occasionally finds its way into the courts because creationism proponents insist on promoting it as an alternative to scientific explanations is not much of a strong endorsement of its relevancy, but says more about the mendaciousness of creationism's boosters.--FeloniousMonk 08:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you will note I have not dismissed the fact that a majority of Scientists reject creationism.No I do not dismiss that but clarify it. Second the premise assumes that Science by default is the ultimate truth, or should I say trumps religious truth, I am not trying to debate here, what I am saying is this ARTICLE on creationism sounds like its written by a evolutionist! At least in this part... why do I say that it is.. it omits the fact that some consider creationism a subject of faith! Yet here we go again trying to box it up in science and the science method, Why? We are talking creationism here NOT DEBATING ITS FAULTS. so SCIENTISTS don't take it serious whoopee! Millions of others do! Should we now take a poll and then post the results here? Maybe we should call it a cult? or polls show only Fundy's in America think such things. No a definition should be neutral... not subject to EVO scientists to define creationism! Give me a break, please read my revision it is NOT BIAS.

To define a religious statement by EVO scientists.... well its like different don't you see that? Again my revision, what is wrong with it? what are its errors? does it not say about the same thing but better? I mean using the word "most" is kind of simple in this context? no?

I agree that the "controversial" tag violates all reasonable standards of neutrality. That "controversial" tag is just another pop-up advertisement for the scientific method as being the only true point-of-view. And as most advertisements, the "controversial" tag is irrelevant to the subject of the page, which is "creationism."

My main criticism of your proposed substitute header tag is that it is too long, if I may say so. I hereby move that we just remove the "controversial" tag altogether. ---Rednblu 16:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that the "controversial" tag is unreasonable or an "advertisement for the scientific method as being the only true point-of-view". No reasonable person viewing the volume of debate on the Talk pages for Creationism and its nine archives(!) would conclude that the subject of creationism is not controversial, not to mention the fact that creationists constantly fan the flames of the controversy themselves by insisting that creationism be taught alongside or in place of evolution or other scientific explanations. In fact, the current favored tactic of Intelligent Design proponents, which is a proxy argument for creationism, is to "teach the controversy", cementing the fact that creationism is indeed a controversial subject.

The controversial tag was placed for good reason, because creationism is a controversial topic both here on wikipedia and in American society in general. Any effort to redefine it as otherwise demonstrates a POV bias. I oppose any effort to remove the tag.--FeloniousMonk 17:47, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Back in the Dark Ages, the Scientific method page was mislabeled with the "controversial" tag; that mislabeling resulted from the bigotry of the theists who wrongfully insisted on defining what the scientists--not theists--should be defining. In the case of the Creationism page, the mislabeling with the "controversy" tag results from the bigotry of those who 1) believe in the preeminence of science and 2) insist on defining what no standard of neutrality would allow non-creationists to define. ---Rednblu 18:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you actually have an argument that even attempts to prove creationism not controversial here on wikipedia or in American society? Or does your assertion rest on your previously made allegation that there's a conspiracy of scientists at wikipedia?--FeloniousMonk 19:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The value of Scientific method in explaining Origins is as "controversial" in the American society as is the value of Creationism. sample poll And in fairness and even-handedness,

  • the "controversial" tag should be removed from the Creationism page as it was from the Evolution page and the Scientific method page, and
  • the phrase "is not considered a serious debate by most scientists" should be removed from the lead section and placed later in the article--where 1) quotations to specific scientists or the wording of 2) cited polls could be presented to accurately frame that put-down.

I am not objecting to the put-down in "is not considered a serious debate by most scientists"; just state it accurately. If Richard Dawkins said it, then use Richard Dawkins actual words--that would be accurate. In paragraph 2, the phrase "is not considered a serious debate by most scientists" is purposefully deceptive--because we all know that scientists consider this debate to be so serious that highly regarded scientists like Richard Dawkins will devote a Hell of a lot of time and effort to win that debate. ---Rednblu 20:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a terribly specious argument: a poll that finds the scientific method as "controversial" as creationism in explaining Origins is not the same as saying the scientific method is controversial at all. Not even close. And you've failed to make your case, or any case for that matter, that creationism is indeed not controversial on wikipedia or in society.

The existing second paragraph currently reads: "Most creationists reject the modern evolutionary synthesis (the current scientific theory of evolution) because it attempts to explain the appearance of life without divine intervention. In this article, supporters of evolution will be referred to as evolutionists. The creationism controversy is the debate between creationists and evolutionists about the origins of life. This debate is highly controversial and is not considered a serious debate by most scientists."

As long as the article's lead statement contains reference to creationism's opposition to evolution, it is only appropriate to qualify how the opposition views creationist's assertions.

The existing phrase "This debate is highly controversial and is not considered a serious debate by most scientists. " accurately reflects reality and should remain as part of the lead section. Quotations of specific scientists and reference to relevant policy statements made by scientific organizations can be accommodated elsewhere in the article. Keeping the existing statement in its current location is central to understanding creationism's status in society as long as the proponents of creationism continue to: 1) insist that creationism is an equally plausible alternative to our scientific understanding of our origin, 2) insist that scientific explanations for our origin are wrong, biased, or part of a anti-creationism conspiracy 3) insist that creationism be taught alongside or in place of scientific explanations in science classes. --FeloniousMonk 20:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello I must say I find this discussion interesting. I also noticed that somehow my revision is now appearing on the main page?! I thought it was removed?! Anyways as far as I can assimilate, the revision is better EXCEPT for length; that may have merit, the whole opening being too long in whole, but really I see little that needs to be trimmed. By mentioning the Scopes Trial the whole topic is really driven to home base. By mentioning the Scientific Method the EVO opposition that is mentioned in the previous line is brought to the fore front. Look I am new here so I am trying to work the system whatever that may be... But I am not new to the topic; I have spent a great deal of time on this topic, and I consider myself to have somewhat of an open mind. But the line.... Not a serious debate? Look at this talk page! Look at all the INTERNET! The statement needs to be clarified and my revision I think does that.. it is not a serious debate AGAINST the scientific method--For a majority of scientists. Look! Is creationism to be defined by the scientific method in its description? I think not, but I agree it's appropriate to mention such. Again this is quite interesting, glad I am playing a small part. Vis. -- --Vistronic 03:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "controversial" tag on the article surely refers to any controversy surrounding the content of the article, not any controversy surrounding creationism. So some of the arguments put by FeloniousMonk and others are invalid, but the fact remains that the content of this article is controversial, as seen by all the discussion on these talk pages. In theory (although I'm not too hopeful), we could get to the stage where we could have a non-controversial article about the creationism controversy. Then, we could remove the "controversial" tag.

As for the phrase "is not considered a serious debate by most scientists", this phrase is ambiguous at best. Most scientists don't consider creation worthy of serious (or any) consideration, but on the other hand, most scientists think that creationism is a serious matter than cannot afford to be ignored, even to the extent of organisations being started and books being written with the express purpose of opposing it! Now that's serious!
Philip J. Rayment 15:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the controversial tag needs to be put on all the new daughter articles as well (if it is not already) and only removed when people are happy with them. When the daughter articles have been finished, will all the controversy have moved into them, or will some remain about this page? If not, then I think that it would be appropriate to remove the tag from this page at that point. CheeseDreams 20:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i agree with you that if we move the controversy off to daughters, we could (and should) take the tag off the main page. as to the daughters, however, are there a substantial number of people that think the daughters are pov? i'd say we should only add controversy tags if a number of people really see them as problematic ... and maybe it's my bias, but i think they're pretty close to fair as is ... and whatever problems there are could be quickly and easily fixed without tags ... any thoughts? Ungtss 20:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am not sure, and therefore I think they ought to be put on by default, as people will need to become accustomed to the new page location. I think at least one page will prove to be controversial (though I am not sure which one).
However, since this article will have less content (due to it being seperated) I am wondering if anything contentious remains in it. CheeseDreams 21:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
in the absence of dissent, i'm gonna remove the tags. Ungtss 21:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article reads (to me) to be NPOV, so I agree its ok to remove the tags on this page. CheeseDreams 21:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

contentious phrase

i like very much Ed Poor's recent edit. -Lethe | Talk

It helps if you sign ~~~~ i.e. use four tildes, that way we know what time you wrote that comment, and what recent edit it therefore refers to. CheeseDreams 21:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speed of Light

Considering that Barry Setterfield's article about the decay of C is an example of Junk Science (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html ), don't you guys give it a little too much credit by not mentioning that it is a fraud?

I don't believe that your criticism is fair. Science puts forward lots of ideas that later turn out to be wrong. Setterfield honestly believed what he was putting forward; it was not a fraud. I also reject that it was junk science. It was an interesting idea that turned out to be wrong. The linked article is hardly a fair account, by the way.
On the other hand, I doubt that the current wording is accurate, in that I've not heard of the idea getting any support from helium diffusion dating.
Philip J. Rayment 02:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, theoretical physics considers the idea of a variable C as highly plausible. However, it disputes the plausibility of the variation proposed by Creationists, for the various reasons given. This subject, however, now belongs in the Talk:Creation vs. evolution debate talk page. Should I cut this discussion and move it there (leaving a note to state that it has been moved)? CheeseDreams 21:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Micro, macro, and selection

  1. I don't understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Would someone please explain it to me, in simple terms a layman can understand?
    The meanings of microevolution and macroevolution seem to vary depending on who you talk to. One definition is that microevolution refers to changes within species, whereas macroevolution refers to one species changing into another. Another definition is that micro- refers to rearrangement, elimination, or corruption of genetic information (i.e. a "downhill" change) whereas macro- refers to the addition of new genetic information. Creationists argue that the former had been observed whereas the latter has not been, but they also (well, Answers in Genesis at least does this) argue that use of the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are misleading in the context of differentiating between what creationists accept and don't accept, and that the terms themselves are best avoided, as they don't really consider "microevolution" to be "real" evolution at all. Instead, they prefer to use terms such as variation. As an aside, creationists use variation to explain the numbers of species and varieties of living things that exist today having derived (in the case of land animals and birds) from the relatively fewer kinds on the ark, without having to invoke "macro-" or "real" evolution. This is consistent with their views that the universe could not create itself, and that the original creation was perfect but has deteriorated since, due to the fall.
    Philip J. Rayment 15:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    As I understand it, macroevolution is a large-scale change which brings a new species into being while microevolution is a small-scale change within an existing species. An example might be that of human races - the emergence of skin colouration in humans is the product of microevolution (a minor change within a breeding population) while the emergence of homo sapiens is the product of macroevolution (the establishment of a new population distinct from, and noth breeding with, other populations). Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong on this... -- ChrisO 15:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I just want to add that evolutionists don't make that distinction. "Macroevolution" and "microevolution" are terms used by creationists only. The border is determined by the imagination of the creationist: if he can imagine it, it's microevolution. Hob 18:09, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
    This is wrong, and has already been discussed in Talk:Creationism/Archive 09#science doesn't distinguish macro- from microevolution?, where I wrote:
    According to Macroevolution FAQ, the terms were not invented by creationists. However, creationists (well, AiG at least) prefer not to use the terms, instead talking about the difference between loss of genetic information and gain of genetic information. See Variation, information and the created kind.
    Philip J. Rayment 00:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I stand corrected. First time in ten years that a creationist knew something better than me. Hob 22:33, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Another thing I don't understand is the role of natural selection in the formation, creation, or appearance of new species. I thought natural selection meant "survival of the fittest", i.e., the principle that AFTER a new species is introduced into an environment, it will either survive and thrive, depending on well its characteristics fit into that environment. I don't see how its fitness for survival AFTER it appears on earth can be a "mechanism" that CAUSES it to come into being. --Uncle Ed 13:39, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    As for natural selection, you are quite right, despite what some evolutionists (who accuse me of not understanding things) say. According to evolution, the new genetic information, and therefore the new varieties of creatures, are due to mutations. Once you have these new varieties, then natural selection chooses the improved ones from the others. On the other hand, the creationist view of natural selection (which, incidentally, was described by a creationist before Darwin), is that natural selection works by removing the less-fit, defective, etc. creatures from the population. It is therefore a conserving force, not an innovative one.
    Philip J. Rayment 15:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Thanks, Philip. May I put this information in the evolution and natural selection articles?
    Uhh, yes, I guess so. But that's a rough summary. Perhaps read up on it (from a creationary/scientific POV) at [11], [12], and [13] Philip J. Rayment 15:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    And are there really two different views of natural selection? Sounds like "six of one, half a dozen of another". In database programming (my area of expertise), we speak of using a "filter". SELECT name FROM employee WHERE department='sales' is a filter, which returns a subset of employees, i.e., only those in the sales department. You can think of it filtering out those that don't match the criteria in the WHERE clause. --Uncle Ed 15:21, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Well, they are both "natural selection". They both work the same way. The difference is in purpose, I guess, not method. Is your database filter used to "filter out" the ones that you don't want, or to "filter in" the ones that you do want? With natural selection, does it remove the exceptions, or keep them? It depends on whether the exceptions are inferior to the norm (the creationary view) or potentially better (fitter) than the norm (the evolutionary view). (NB: That's a simplified view that doesn't account for fitness to specific environments. Again, see those links above.) Philip J. Rayment 15:57, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Natural selection causes a species to come into being and determines whether it will then survive and thrive. If an organism is well adapted to its environment then it has a better chance of survival than a less well-adapted organism. If its adaptations take it in a direction where it can no longer interbreed with its ancestral population, a new species will emerge. Speciation is the cumulative effect of natural selection - lots of small adaptations (or maybe a few big jumps) in sequence result in new species coming into existence. This has actually been observed in the wild (see for example this story on speciation in Drosophila [14].) -- ChrisO 15:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

May I in a soft voice :) suggest that we develop the documentation of these two oppositely-clustered scholarly POVs on the definition of "natural selection" by careful citation and maybe even short quotes to published articles and books? For example, has some molecular biologist used in a publication something like Ed's excellent metaphor of "selecting-in versus selecting-out" to discuss various routes to speciation? I am looking. ---Rednblu 16:19, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, actually *blush* it was Philip's excellent metaphor, but thanks anyway! --Uncle Ed 17:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Selection as a creative force

(Early discussion)

To take another computer software example: Suppose my team of programmers stay up drinking Jolt Cola and eating pizza and dash off various haphazard attempts (not to say hacking) at developing the software my boss wants -- and each of their efforts are sent to the quality assurance group for testing. Let's say 95% of their, er, attempts do NOT pass our rigorous suite of software tests; i.e., the testers find "bugs" in the software.

Eventually, one of these hackers fine programmers gets it right (almost by sheer chance as it were) and his routine or module passes the QA group's tests. We accumulate these modules into a fully-formed program, and ship it (totally bug-free, by now! ;-) to our customers.

My question is, to what extent may we say that the QA group was part of the creative process? If we call 'hacking' a "random" process of monkeying with the software code (like simians typing at random to produce Shakespeare)?

My boss sometimes accuses the programmers of hacking away at random, so he won't let me drop the QA part of the process. (I bristle when he calls them monkeys; a couple of them are clean-shaven, I'll have you know!)

But would he be right if he asserted that testing was the chief mechanism by which my team created software? If so, would he still be right if he said it was the ONLY mechanism?

I'd like to think that something OTHER THAN testing is involved in the process. Some force is required to swing those software axes, so to speak, and hack up some source code. To say that testing by itself is sufficient, would be ludicrous. (The QA guys think they're hot stuff, but even they don't pretend they actually wrote anything we ever shipped.)

In plain terms, there must be some mechanism which causes the changes that we see between one species and another. The process of weeding out maladaptive changes is, I suppose, part of the formative process: the successive winnowing out helps the new species emerge. But the midwife is not the mother. And the software tester is not the programmer. So I don't see how the selection of better organisms by de-selecting worse ones ever causes the changes.

Does anyone understand what I'm getting at here, or am I just another hopelessly confused Christian apologist with delusions of intellectual grandeur? --Uncle Ed 18:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your metaphor is fatally flawed, the QA system is explicitely representative of an outside entity making the choice, and therefore pre-supposes God is involved. The point about evolution is that the choice is made by natural forces, such as the fact that the lesser species do not survive as well due to their lesser status.
A better example would be the world of Film Genres. Genres change all the time changes all the time, mutating a little on most occasions. The genres that inevitably produce rubbish films (such as "live action romantic comedies about sea creatures who speak basque and have part time jobs in the swiss government") fail to survive, wheras those which show more promise such as "comic strip superhero films" go on to spawn multiple films of a similar style within a few months. Anonymous
Interesting "better" example. And like most such examples, still favours a creationary explanation than an evolutionary one. Specifically, all those films are created by intelligent beings! The evolutionary aspect of the new information coming from chance (mutations) is absent. Philip J. Rayment 14:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In what way do you view the genres as created, are they not just ideas which are evolving? I find it odd to suggest that the creators have total control over the matter and are not influenced by the existing genres whatsoever. It would be more accurate to identify these creators as the source of mutation. Familiarity with the idea of memes might help clarify this for you. Anonymous
<<are they not just ideas which are evolving?>>
When most people speak of "evolution", they think of goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution, or perhaps cosmic evolution, but the word itself can simply mean "change". So, yes the ideas are "evolving", or changing, but the question is, what is driving the change? My point was that the choice on what goes into a film (and therefore what genre they fall into or encourage) is made by intelligent beings (the films' producers, etc.). As such it is no analogy to biological (or cosmic) evolution, which denies intelligent input. Of course the film-makers are influenced by the existing genres and will often choose to follow a genre that is currently proving popular, but that is a choice, and they retain control of the content of their films.
Philip J. Rayment 02:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How much could the choice, of what goes in, be considered to be actually entirely 100% down to the "intelligent beings", and how much does to the influence of peer pressure and marketing? I maintain that the majority of what is to be the genre is not decided by the "intelligent being", but rather by the prevailing fashion. Anonymous
Even though people have a wide variety of what they think looks nice, why is it that the majority of people dress in similar styles of clothing? Is this their choice? or the shops? --217.150.114.18 14:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Could we work out your analogy for a pair of heuristic programs? --let's not worry at the moment about who programmed the first pair of heuristic programs? --heuristic programs that "spawn" second-generation programs also heuristic? Surrounding the colony of "spawning" heuristic programs, there is an ecological program driven by wind, air, sun, and rain which daily throws new challenges at the heuristic programs inside it? Is it possible that the heuristic programs could "migrate" in their programming to become totally different species of programs with hitherto unforeseen modules of arms, legs, brains, . . . .?
In any case, can we find some quotable molecular biologist who expresses a model like we are examining? ---Rednblu 18:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(continued)

The theory of evolution does not claim that natural selection is the only force necessary for making new features. It says that mutation and selection are both necessary. It's like walking: you have to move your left foot (mutation), then your right foot (selection), then the left one again. Creationists often say things like "how can you move forward by only moving your left foot?! And it's also impossible to move forward by only moving your right foot! Therefore macrowalking is impossible! You can only have little changes, in the dimension of your leg length, and one shouldn't call those 'walking'." Evolutionists say, "nobody said that one leg is enough. We always say you have to use both." Hob 18:19, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
I've never heard any creationist say anything like "how can you move forward by only moving your left foot?" That sounds like a straw man to me. Philip J. Rayment 00:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's a simile. Of course what they really say is, "how can a new species evolve by only random mutations!? And it's also impossible to evolve a new species by only selecting unfit individuals! Therefore macroevolution is impossible! You can only have little changes, in the borders of the kind, and one shouldn't call those 'evolution'." Translated into the simile, where mutation is the left foot and selection is the right foot, this sounds as stupid as it is. Hob 22:24, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
I realised it was a simile. That's why I put the words "anything like" in the sentence. Your rewording to be more, um, 'literal', doesn't change my response. I have not heard creationists say anything like that. All creationists I know are well aware that evolution invokes natural selection as well, and that natural selection is supposed to select the fitter individuals. That is, that evolution walks on two feet. I suspect that (a) you are not explaining yourself adequately, (b) you have misunderstood what creationists are saying, or (c) the creationists you have talked to are amateurs who don't really know what they are talking about (which would be consistent with your comment that I am the first in ten years that has known something better than you!). Do you have a link to an actual quote by a creationist? Philip J. Rayment 22:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. Anon, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., p. 102f.
  2. Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Master Books, Arkansas, p. 51-55.
Both say that mutations don't produce new features and that things don't get built by accident. Both ignore selection and pretend that the theory of evolution says mutation alone does it. This is very common (the 747-from-a-junkyard argument), and I think it's strange you never encountered it.
  1. [15] says about selection: "It cannot be the force behind evolution because it is not creative and doesn't add complexity to living things."
  2. Also, a few lines above this, Ed Poor argues exactly along those lines.
This is also pretty common.
Thanks for the references, it allows me to see what you are talking about.
It's not that I haven't encountered the arguments. It's my second option above ("you have misunderstood what creationists are saying"). What the creationists say and what you say they say are not the same thing.
To stick with your walking analogy for a moment, you mentioned that evolution requires that the left foot move first, and only then can the right foot move. Creationists are not saying "how can you move forward by only moving your left foot?", but "how can you move forward when you have to move your left foot first and your left leg is paralysed?" It doesn't matter how useful the right foot is if it never gets a chance to have a go. The argument is that the mutations that are needed to supply the new genetic information to be selected by natural selection don't actually supply new genetic information.
Philip J. Rayment 00:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This doesn't hold water. If they think the left leg is paralyzed, they should talk about the left leg, not the right one. Talking about the right leg is a red herring. Also, this is pretty much what I'm saying: first they look at mutation, claim that it doesn't "supply new information", probably meaning "very little new information, and only very rarely". Thus, mutation is out of the picture, they look at selection, and selection can't do anything alone. Actually, the left leg is not paralyzed, but it can only do one little step. Adding up little steps is too hard a task if the first thing you do is saying, "oh, that's approximately zero".
<<If they think the left leg is paralyzed, they should talk about the left leg, not the right one.>>
Why can't they talk about both?
<<first they look at mutation, claim that it doesn't "supply new information", probably meaning "very little new information, and only very rarely".>>
No, they mean that doesn't supply new information, just as they said.
OK, then they are talking obvious nonsense. Every time a cosmic ray changes one nucleotide into another, two bits of information are generated. Hob 09:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
No, that is nonsense. That is like saying that every time a typist mistypes something, he is adding to the information content of his document. Information (in this context at least) requires meaning. If it doesn't mean something, it is not information but noise ("data without meaning"). Philip J. Rayment 14:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That is like saying that every time a typist mistypes something,... - indeed, this is an interesting analogy. The typist is not (necessarily) adding information to the document, but to the gene pool of the language. If the variant spelling is well accepted, the language as a whole moves to the new spelling. How do you think American English lost the u in color, government (lost an e there, to, I think), and so on? --Stephan Schulz 13:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ignoring the fact that I believe that the loss of u in color was introduced deliberately by Webster, how is changing from "colour" to "color" an increase in information? The meaning is exactly the same. This is not an increase in information (keeping in mind that I was talking about information that had meaning.) Philip J. Rayment 23:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For the ribosomes, the organelles that translate the RNA into proteins, it is information, since it has meaning, and it is translated into amino acids just the same way as before. The enzyme the ribosome constructs may do its job better than before, or worse. You seem to be claiming that there are no beneficial mutations.
Creationists do claim that there are no information-adding mutations (occasionally an information-losing mutation may be beneficial, so they don't claim no beneficial mutations. See [16] and [17]). Philip J. Rayment 16:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But you are side-tracking. Your claim was that they don't talk about both feet. Now you are admitting that they do talk about both and saying that they should only talk about the left!!! I wonder how many working legs are needed for a backflip?? :-)
Philip J. Rayment 15:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You distort what I said. When judging the mechanism of evolution, one should look at the combination of mutation and selection, because that is the proposed mechanism. Saying that "selection alone can't do it" is a Straw Man, and saying that "mutation alone can't do it" is a Straw Man. Both make it sound as if evolutionary biologists earnestly proposed that one of the two effects worked alone, so both are not serious scientific arguments, but pseudoscience-typical attempts at distorting opponents' viewpoint. That was my first point.
When judging whether mutation can add new information, "selection alone can't do it" is still a Straw Man. In that case, one should look at what mutation can do. It seems you don't even try to understand what I say, but given my experience with creationists, I expected as much. Hob 09:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
I did wonder if I was misunderstanding your seemingly-contradictory statements, but that was the best that I could make of them.
But to get to the main point, I have two problems with your argument. First, the two feet analogy is correct in that it is one foot and then the other. They are walking, not jumping. It is not both feet working simultaneously, but one after the other. Therefore the two can be looked at in isolation to see if either work. If either one doesn't work, the whole process fails.
Yes. How is that a problem for my argument?
You appeared to be claiming that talking about them in isolation is misrepresenting the evolutionary argument. Philip J. Rayment 16:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Second, to use Scientific Creationism that you referred to, Morris starts off the section (on page 51) talking about how selection supposedly selects from new information, but points out that the "new information" of Darwin was actually variation with the available genetic information, and afterwards goes on to talk about mutations as an alternative source of genetic information. But the point is that right at the start of the section, he is talking about the combination. He does not indicate that evolutionists believe it to be one or the other, rather than both.
Philip J. Rayment 14:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
He doesn't need to indicate it. As soon as he says that selection is useless without mutation, the Straw Man is erected. BTW, initially I was referring to Ed Poor's argument above, not Morris'. Also, I don't want to talk about strawmen. Strawmen are for distracting attention from weaknesses, and talking about strawmen is tantamount to falling for them. The heart of the matter is the claim that "mutations don't add information". On top of that, this is not the right place. This is for discussion how the Creationism page should look. I just wanted to point out that Ed Poor's argument was weak. I guess I'll just stop this. Hob 15:56, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
But selection is useless without something to select, which is supposedly supplied by mutations. However, agreed that this is not the place. Not agreed though that Ed Poor's argument was weak. Philip J. Rayment 16:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(continued again)

<<Creationists do claim that there are no information-adding mutations (occasionally an information-losing mutation may be beneficial, so they don't claim no beneficial mutations. See [18] and [19]).>>

In my opinion, the clearest example of a mutation providing "information-adding" would be the HIV virus--which apparently sometime around 1950 mutated in a way that it could suddenly mutate faster in a safe place along its genome and thereby outwit the enemy--the enemy being the human immune system. As I understand it, the effective HIV virus of today mutates so fast that in each new virus strand there are an average of two mutations compared to its "parent." The advantage that the HIV virus gets from such a fast mutation is that the human immune system keeps building effective immune responses to the "parents" but the "kids" are mutated so totally different that the immune responses made to deactivate the parents do not work against the kids.

This makes me question the value of the term "information-adding" as a test of anything real--because all that counts here, it seems to me, is some temporary advantage to improve the fraction of "kids" that have "kids" that have "kids" . . . . You might say that the HIV virus "added information" by mutating so that it could mutate faster. Certainly from an anthropomorphic view, any of my friends would consider it a brilliant "information-adding" war strategy to come up with the understanding that the "enemy" always builds immune defenses against the "parents" and assumes that the "kids" will not have significant mutation. But the HIV virus made that "information-adding" mutation all on its own--and with no brain--as far as I can tell. :)

Is there a creationist scholar who discusses the HIV mutations from the standpoint of "information-adding"? I am curious. And I think Wikipedia readers would like to see how that discussion and argument might progress--from the various points-of-view. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. See Has AIDS evolved? and HIV resistance to drugs. Philip J. Rayment 14:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Good! I will be tied up for a week, but I will be back. I read your links above. I would be interested in developing a good section from all of the material we have on this. But I wonder if discussions like that should be on the Creationism page rather than a page like Creationism versus Evolution--or some such name. What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for the belated response (but you've been away anyway!). I would like to see an article listing and summarising the (young-earth) creationist arguments, but I can't decide what it should go under. Creationism doesn't seem appropriate, as I think that should be more about creationism's history and rationale, rather than a long list of arguments. Creation belief is more about a wide spectrum of beliefs (not just 'creationist'). Young Earth creationism is not appropriate, because although YEC's are a subset of all creationists, their arguments are more of a superset of creationists arguments. For example, old-earth creationists, etc. will use arguments to (try and) show that evolution is wrong, whereas YECs will use arguments to show that evolution is wrong and arguments to show that the universe is 'young'. Philip J. Rayment 15:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can we cut the discussion below into another, new, section instead? as this section is rather long, and it doesn't seem terribly much to do with the section title.--217.150.114.18 15:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Extremely few would consider the opinions presented at answersingenesis.org as representing definitive scientific opinion. Certainly few credible scientists. They don't present or conduct actual science at answersingenesis.org; they start with a conclusion and select only evidence that supports that conclusion while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. They make no bones about being open with their bias at least: "This illustration shows people the importance for Christians to build all their thinking—in every area—on the Bible."[20].--FeloniousMonk 21:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<Extremely few would consider the opinions presented at answersingenesis.org as representing definitive scientific opinion.>>
Nobody said that the views presented were "definitive" in the sense that everyone agrees with them. Apart from that, you exaggerate how few would think that the views are scientifically valid, but essentially evolutionists wouldn't agree and creationists would. Your statement is true only to the extent that evolutionists (or evolutionary scientists) outnumber creationists (or creationary scientists).
I doubt that you can back up your claim that "They don't present or conduct actual science at answersingenesis.org", but if you attempt to, you should also define it more precisely. Much of the science that they present is actually from evolutionary scientists, so what does your comment say about that science?
They do consider the Bible preeminent, but then I could quote you evolutionary scientists that consider rejection of the Divine or acceptance of materialism as preeminent. Both sides come to the debate with their a priori assumptions; the difference with AiG is that they recognise and acknowledge them.
Philip J. Rayment 01:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Only on established, credible peer-reviewed scientific journals represent definitive scientific opinion. The real distinguishing difference between the actual scientific community and the AiG is that the former starts with a hypothesis and considers all evidence in testing its validity while the latter, as do many creationists, start with a conclusion and only accept evidence that supports it. An extended read of the "scientific articles" presented at answersingenesis.org confirms this. By beginning with a conclusion, god created the world, AiG fails to practice sound method. Mentioning in passing the biblical basis for their a priori assumptions does not make their method anymore sound. You'd have to build a far stronger case than this to show that propositional knowledge relied upon by science is just a priori assumptions; that's a specious claim at best. A good encyclopedic article will only present sound reasoning from credible references.--FeloniousMonk 19:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<Only on established, credible peer-reviewed scientific journals represent definitive scientific opinion.>>
AiG publish a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Of course, it being creationist, you would dismiss it as not credible.
In science, peer-reviewed means revieed by recognized members of the scientific community, not a selected set of AiG croonies.--Stephan Schulz 09:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Again, trying to besmirch someone's reputation is not what this page is for. But to respond, AiG scientists and other creationary scientists they call on for peer review are recognised members of the scientific community. Philip J. Rayment 14:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Recognised by whom? It doesn't count if they are only recognised as such by themselves, because that would only be being recognised by the "AiG" community and not the significantly larger scientific community nor of a majority of it. --217.150.114.18 15:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You tell me. Or at least ask Stephan Schulz, who used the term. Surely "recognised" is not a synonymn for "evolutionist"? Surely it means something like, say, having published scientific papers? If so, then that also includes many creationists, including, I'm sure, those that peer-review AiG articles. Philip J. Rayment 03:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, in order to qualify as a reviewer you should be an expert in the field. You should have demonstrated your expertise to the editor, e.g. by publishing good papers yourself. But in particular, you should be an outsider - e.g. not a frequent collaborator, not from the same institution, not a close personal friend (or at the least, you should warn the editor, and the editor should take this into account when evaluating the reviews). You should also be a sceptic - that is, the paper has to convince you of its point. As far as I can tell, nothing like this happens at AiG. In fact, everyone working there has to accept the outrageous (from a scientific point of view) statement of faith. That alone disqualifies all these peers as scientific reviewers. No further discussion is necessary (and I'll try to not fall for it again). --Stephan Schulz 13:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is nothing to indicate that AiG's reviewers are not experts in their field and have not demonstrated that expertise. Neither has anybody raised any evidence that they are frequent collaborators, from the same institution, or close personal friends. What do you mean by a sceptic? A sceptic of creation, or a sceptic of the particular idea proposed in the article? If the latter, again nobody has raised any evidence that this is not the case. If you mean that they have to be a sceptic of creation, then surely to be consistent all papers by evolutionists need to be reviewed by creationists! In short, you have provided nothing of substance to show that there is anything wrong with the AiG review process. In fact you even say "As far as I can tell, nothing like this (proper review) happens". So you don't know that the review process is flawed, you are just assuming it! Philip J. Rayment 23:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<The real distinguishing difference between the actual scientific community and the AiG...>>
AiG employs and makes use of scientists, that is, members of the actual scientific community. Evolutionists' constant attempts to draw an artificial line between scientists and creationists does their credibility no favours.
<<...is that the former starts with a hypothesis and considers all evidence in testing its validity ...>>
No, atheists and the like, who make up a significant proportion of the scientific community, cannot consider any evidence that God could be involved (and remain atheists).
<<By beginning with a conclusion, god created the world, AiG fails to practice sound method.>>
"God created the world" is not a 'conclusion', but a starting assumption. Many scientists begin with the assumption that God did not create the world, or at the very least, that the world can be explained without invoking God.
Science assumes that there are no supernatural effects (otherwise the whole point of science, trying to understand the universe, is moot). Science has no problem with a god that is part of nature - it just has not found any convincing evidence for it. By contrast, so called scientists of AiG have to sign a statement of faith that declare the books of Genesis to be literal truth. You might call that an assumption, but according to the statement of faith, it is an assumption that cannot be questioned or rejected, and hence is inherently unscientific.--Stephan Schulz 09:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In any case, the articles were offered in response to a question. If the articles themselves provide misinformation insofar as the question is concerned (which is unlikely, considering the questioner was asking what creationists have to say), you can try and correct that specific misinformation. Beyond that (such as trying to besmirch the reputation of the organisation), this forum is not the place for that, and your comments were therefore out of line.
Philip J. Rayment 03:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Out of line? Not at all. In fact Stephan Schulz's comments were more than just appropriate, they were necessary. As long as you present any organization here as a reference for supporting points to be made in the article, those organizations are open to scrutiny. Answersingenesis.org has no scientific standing to "besmirch". What is actually out of line is filling Talk pages with endless debates over partisan POV.--FeloniousMonk 17:27, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, FeloniousMonk, Stephan inserted his comments inside my response to you. The "out of line" comment was directed at you. Rednblu asked what creationists say about about a particular topic. In response, I linked a couple of articles by creationists. You then jumped in and questioned the credentials of the creationists. Why? How on earth are creationists unqualified to speak on what creationists say? That is why I was saying that you were out of line in turning this part of this talk page into an attack on creationists. I stand by that. Philip J. Rayment 00:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Whether your comment was to me or Stephen and why it was presented is irrelevant; my point still stands either way: Any reference source presented for support of POV points are open to scrutiny. Answersingenesis.org pointedly makes the assertion that it is engaged in Science, when by definition, it is actually engaged in Junk Science, a point clearly lost on or overlooked by those who share its POV agenda. Pointing out errors of fact here is not an attack on creationists.--FeloniousMonk 15:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But the reference source was not presented for support of POV points. The reference source was documentation on what creationists think. You have not explained how the linked articles are in any way unqualified to talk about what creationists think on those topics.
You keep claiming things like "Creationism is by definition junk science", but keep failing to explain how or why this is so. I maintain that creation is no more junk science than evolution. I also note the following from the Junk Science article you linked to: "Junk science is a term used to derogate...". That suggests that by using the term you are being derogatory, rather than objective. "... there is often no political agreement as to which side of a debate constitutes 'junk', and which 'real' science, though the scientific community may have an overwhelming majority opinion." But obviously you know what is and what isn't.
You didn't point out errors of fact; you besmirched the veracity of the authors. It's the same thing that you have done to me. Instead of telling me where I was factually wrong, you just said that I didn't know what I was talking about.
Philip J. Rayment 16:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(More Continuation)

---

The level of indentation is getting absurd, so I'm skipping it here. I've stated my position on the reason and its validity for pointing out issue with the credibility of answersingenesis.org, I'll no longer debate it here. I haven't said (recently at least) that Creationism is Junk Science, I said that answersingenesis.org engages in Junk Science, and that is because they engage in agenda-driven research that ignores standard methodologies and practices in an attempt to secure a given result from an experiment. That much is obvious by their own admissions about their assumptions.--FeloniousMonk 16:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • You have not explained how AiG are unqualified to talk about what creationists think.
  • AiG are creationists, and one of the leading examples of creationists, so any distinction between them and creationism in this context seems to be splitting hairs. Regardless, my comments apply in either case.
  • Atheistic evolutionists 'engage in agenda-driven research' as much as creationists, but I don't see you questioning the veracity of people like Prof. Richard Dawkins.
  • You have not documented any "standard methodologies and practices" that AiG have ignored. That is nothing more than an unsubstantiated slur.
Philip J. Rayment 16:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I refuse to be goaded or drawn into a long discussion about answersingenesis.org, but I will respond to these last questions and points of yours since you seem to be not getting it.
  • I have never said AiG is unqualifed to present or comment on creationist views, I've only said that AiG does not represent mainstream scientific opinion because it does not engage in actual science.
  • That atheist evolutionists 'engage in agenda-driven research' as much as creationists is just your opinion. It has not been established by any objective, neutral research that I'm aware of. If you have evidence to support your opinion, your welcome to present on the Talk pages for the evolution article, its hardly relevant here.
  • You have been shown over and over here that AiG's own statements placing the bible as the ultimate difinitive source of truth violates the most basic precepts of scientific method.[21] [22] Your continual refusal to see or accept that is proof to me that you have a flawed understanding of what constitutes valid scientific method.
I'm done discussing answersingenesis.org--FeloniousMonk 17:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<<I refuse to be goaded or drawn into a long discussion about answersingenesis.org>>
I wasn't trying to do that. You started the discussion about AiG, and I pointed out that it was out of line.
<<I have never said AiG is unqualifed to present or comment on creationist views, I've only said that AiG does not represent mainstream scientific opinion...>>
No, but you made that comment in response to me referencing them on creationist views. You have yet to explain the relevance of that.
<<placing the bible as the ultimate difinitive source of truth violates the most basic precepts of scientific method>>
So you keep saying, but you don't explain how this is the case, given that (a) the scientific method is a method, whereas AiG's statement is a statement of belief, and having a belief in a creator does not stop one using the scientific method in conducting research, as exemplified by the fact that (b) many founders of modern science had that very belief.
Philip J. Rayment 15:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<<Science assumes that there are no supernatural effects >>
Not true. Science is an activity; it doesn't 'assume' anything. It is the scientists (many of them) that make the assumption. And that is my point--those scientists assume that as their starting point. Just like creationary scientists assume that there is a creator.
<<(otherwise the whole point of science, trying to understand the universe, is moot)>>
Try telling that to the founders of modern science, most of whom had the same assumption about a creator. It is not incompatible with doing science to assume that there is a creator.
Philip J. Rayment 14:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, first thanks for lifting this up 10 levels of indention. I don't know if it makes it easier to read, but it does make it easier to answer. Now to the meat. The basic aim of science is to understand the universe. That implies that it is understandable. A supernatural creator is, by definition, not. Note again that science has no problem with a non-supernatural creator. However, according to Occam's Razor, you don't start with assuming it, you only add it to your theory if necessary. Today, there is no evidence that a theory with a creator is somehow simpler, better, or more correct than one without. Goddidit is simple only for simple minds. It adds no descriptive power to a naturalistic explanation, but opens a whole lot of additional questions.--Stephan Schulz 16:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<The basic aim of science is to understand the universe. That implies that it is understandable.>>
It would be better to say that "that assumes that it is understandable". That is another of the assumptions that I was talking about. In this case, it is an assumption that both creationists and non-creationists make, but the assumption is actually based on the idea that there is order in the universe, and that that order derives from an orderly creator. That is why modern science arose in Christian Europe. Why would a universe created by chance have order? Therefore, why would a universe created by chance be understandable? Many scientists have since ditched the idea of a creator, but haven't ditched the assumption of an understandable universe. But the assumption is consistent with a created universe, not a chance universe.
Well, for one there is the anthropcentric explanation. Humans cannot live in a chaotic universe. Hence of course we see order. No creator required. And modern science arose in "Christian" Europe arguably a) by selective perception (Algebra? Algorithm? Arabic" numbers? and b) in spite of Christianities best attempts. (Note the "arguably" - I'm not claiming that no good early science was done by Christians or even from a Christian motiviation, but I am claiming that the Christian substratum is not critcial for the development of science).--Stephan Schulz 09:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I assume that you are referring to the Anthropic principle. But it doesn't explain how it could have happened, merely that we wouldn't be discussing it unless it had happened.
A number of historians have said that modern science arose in Christian Europe because it was Christian, because the view was that the created world was therefore able to be rationally studied.
Philip J. Rayment 15:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There's some significant irony in seeing Christians earnestly type that science would not exist without Christianity on computers made by Bhuddists in China.--FeloniousMonk 15:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<A supernatural creator is, by definition, not [understandable].>>
This is beside the point (and wrong, but that's another issue). I'm not talking about scientifically studying the creator, but rather doing science based on--or allowing for--the assumption that there is a creator, as most of the early scientists did (and some current ones still do).
Well, there is a massive difference bewteen doing sciene based on the assumption that there is a creator and allowing for [it]. The first is not science at all, the second is done successfully by any number of scienctists day in and day out. --Stephan Schulz 09:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The first is science as much as assuming no creator. By "allowing for", I meant that in trying to determine the cause of any individual phenomenon, creationists can consider both natural and supernatural causes, but materialists can only consider natural explanations. Philip J. Rayment 15:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<Today, there is no evidence that a theory with a creator is somehow simpler, better, or more correct than one without.>>
I would beg to differ. "The universe was created by a Being with the power to create it" seems to me to be better, logically, than "The universe created itself", or "First there was nothing, then there was something". Another example would be "The information in DNA was created by an intelligent being" is simpler than trying to explain how information came without there being an intelligence, when all our observations are that information (in the sense of conveying meaning) only comes from an intelligence.
"The universe was created by a Being with the power to create it" gets you into an infinite regression. Who created that Being? The same thing happends if you assume the intelligent being that creates the "information in DNA". Where did it come from? What is it source of "information"?--Stephan Schulz 09:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's not an infinite regression if that Being is uncreated and therefore had no beginning. This has always been the understanding of Christendom. Philip J. Rayment 15:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<Goddidit is simple only for simple minds.>>
That is a very simplistic representation of it, but to the extent that it is applicable, what does that say about the great minds of the past and present that believe that God did do it? You are basically trying to insult the intelligence of everyone that doesn't agree with your point of view, and many indisputably very intelligent people are included in that insult.
Philip J. Rayment 00:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That they were simple in that respect. Are you trying an argument at (undefined) authority? "We don't know what causes thunder and lightning. It's got to be Thor's Hammer!". That is simplicistic. It does not change if you say "We don't know how the universe came into being. It's got be be God". --Stephan Schulz 09:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your examples are simplistic, but they don't represent creationists. Creationists attribute to God (a) those things that He told us he did, and (b) those things for which a designer is the most logical explanation. You said that science can accept a natural creator, not a supernatural one, but the point is that there are ways of telling if something is designed, and if there is no available natural designer, it is not the simplistic examples you give to postulate that the designer may be supernatural. Creationists don't claim to be able to scientifically prove supernatural design, though. Rather, they argue that neither evolution (of the universe, etc.) nor creation is scientifically proveable, but the evidence that we have is more consistent with creation than evolution. That is a reasoned analysis, not just attributing to God what we don't understand. On the other hand, materialists have faith that materialism is the answer (we don't know how life began, but we know that it must have been naturalistic), because they make this a priori assumption that the supernatural is not to be considered, and then claim that they are being rational! Philip J. Rayment 15:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Quoting you here, you say "Creationists attribute to God (a) those things that He told us he did, and (b) those things for which a designer is the most logical explanation." You've made a number of errors of logic here. The first part of your sentence should read: 'Creationists attribute to God (a) those things that He allegedly told us he did...' There is no evidence that the Bible, and Genesis in particular is the actual word of God, nor is there a rational reason to believe that it is. As far as the second part of your sentence: (b) those things for which a designer is the most logical explanation, that is a perfect example of the argumentum ad ignorantium or argument by lack of imagination. Firstly, it's not the most logical explanation at all. Logic to be valid must be rational, and assuming an unseen, supernatural creator is irrational on its face. Secondly, just because you and other creationists cannot imagine how a universe came into being naturally, does not mean that it did not and hence "God did it." Your logic and knowledge on this topic are extremely flawed, people shouldn't have to spend every day here correcting you on things you should already understand if you were to edit the article from a position of knowledge.--FeloniousMonk 16:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
<<The first part of your sentence should read: 'Creationists attribute to God (a) those things that He allegedly told us he did...' >>
If that is so, then you should have said, "There is allegedly no evidence that the Bible...is the actual word of God".
<<There is no evidence that the Bible, and Genesis in particular is the actual word of God, nor is there a rational reason to believe that it is.>>
Do you know everything? Then how can you be certain that there is no evidence nor reason? Perhaps there is evidence that you are not aware of. There is no scientific proof (not that you could expect scientific proof in a case like this), but there certainly is some evidence, and some reason.
<<Logic to be valid must be rational, and assuming an unseen, supernatural creator is irrational on its face.>>
Why? Why is it rational to exclude a supernatural creator from consideration?
<<Secondly, just because you and other creationists cannot imagine how a universe did not come into being naturally, does not mean that it did not and hence "God did it." >>
No, but that is not what I said. I meant (and near enough to said) was that "God did it" (as you simplistically put it) is the more reasonable explanation of the explanations on offer.
Philip J. Rayment 16:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Yet more Continuation)

The burden of proof is always on those making a claim. If you have proof that the bible is indeed the actual word of God, then by all means present it, but remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Lacking such evidence there is no reason to assume that it is. Anyone who has, only does so on Faith.
Considering that I was responding to your claim that there is no evidence that the Bible is God's Word, that puts the onus on you to prove your claim! How is the Bible being God's Word an "extraordinary" claim, unless one is first of all starting with the assumption that it isn't? Philip J. Rayment 15:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Claiming that creationism is a "more reasonable explanation" than naturalistic ones only demonstrates that you do not understand the argumentum ad ignorantium, philosophical naturalism, occam's razor, and the scientific method.--FeloniousMonk 18:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And yet again you attempt to put me down instead of actually explain something. And yet again you are ignoring all the past and present intelligent people that consider(ed) creation more reasonable. Philip J. Rayment 15:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An easy analogy that I like to use to is this. If you have green and red lizards that live on green leaves. Natural selection says that because the green lizards are camoflauged they will have a better chance at survival. Most down to earth creationsts will agree with this type of microevolution. We started with lizards and ended with lizards, there was a small change but no new species. What we don't believe is that the lizards turned into some completely different kind of creature. Evolutionists will tell you that mutations in the DNA code over time will eventually create changes and that enough of these changes over time will create a completely different species. The observable evidence is that the mutations exist but come from a loss of data in the DNA code. If you want to turn a beatle into a camel you have to add much information to the DNA code and to this day not one evolutionist has come up with a mechanism that adds to the DNA.

Armbar

Retroviruses such as HIV work explicitely by inserting code into DNA. Thus there is an easy natural mechanism (though it is not necessarily the only one) for the addition of large quantities of material. Anonymous
Geneticists are often mentioned on news items as having inserted the gene for such and such into a different creature (i.e. Genetic Engineering). It is therefore a possible thing to happen that the number and nature of genes increase.--217.150.114.18 15:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with both of those statements, which is one reason that I said that Armbar's explanation is sloppy. The problem is not the mechanism of insertion, but the source of brand-new genetic information. Mechanisms that copy existing genetic information into DNA do not explain the source of brand-new genetic information. Philip J. Rayment 03:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Surely there can be genetic mutations which have all of the following properties
(a) they cause a gene to change or be destroyed/lost
(b) they exist in some retro-viral entity
(c) the retro-viral entity inserts it into a greater entity
(d) the net result is the increase in genetic information in the greater entity
In addition, surely all existing genetic information is either A, G, T, or C. Changes simply to the order of these, let alone inserting large additional chunks in randomly, produces entirely new sequences. The consequence is a new protein and thus a new gene. In most cases it will probably do nothing useful, but in a few could be the source for evolution.
Copying existing genetic information is copying the A-G-C-T code. If you copy any sequence of letters from any part of any word and insert it into some other word, you will get a new word. I don't see how there could not be brand-new genetic information by this mechanism.
217.150.114.18 14:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The difference between humans and cabbage is only about 20% of the DNA at most, so turning a beatle into a camel really doesn't require as sizable an amount of DNA as one would first think. Anonymous
I know what you are getting at, Armbar, and I agree with what you are getting at, but for the sake of any evolutionists reading this, I must say that that is a very sloppy explanation. Sorry. Philip J. Rayment 03:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Incredible slant toward Christianity (concerning Judaism in particular).

Christianity is far from the only religion which advocates creationism. References to "Christian," "Christianity," and "Bible" should be replaced with terms that include all three Abrahamic religions. Excluding Judaism and Islam simply because Christianity is the most popular advocate of creationism in the 'States ("english speaking world"?) makes this article philosophically inaccurate. Excluding Judaism in particular is quite unusual, seeing as Christians draw their records of creation from Torah texts.

I also had problems with the following sentence: "However, not all Christians are creationists, nor are all creationists Christian. In fact, other major religions believe some variant of Creationism, though often not in such terms." I attempted to fix the sentence by replacing "Christian" with theist, but the statement would no longer be true, as I'm fairly sure all theistic creationists are indeed theists. I have removed the sentence altogether.

This article should not become a propaganda pamphlet for Southern Baptist "Christian Creationism." Shem 10:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<<Christianity is far from the only religion which advocates creationism.>>
Which is why the article had the sentence that you removed. Thus Judaism and Islam weren't "excluded", and the article was not therefore inaccurate (on that point). However, I didn't particularly like the sentence you removed, but because it was awkward. The fact is (I believe) that Creationism is primarily a Christian-based phenomemon, as most other religions don't take that much of an interest in it. But I agree that these other religions do address it to some extent, and they certainly should be mentioned. The only question is how much prominence they should be given. I don't have an exact answer to that.
"Theistic creationists"? Do you mean theistic evolutionists?
Philip J. Rayment 00:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I meant what was typed. "Theistic creationists" meaning those who hold that the universe was created by a deity, as opposed to those who might suggest an extraterrestrial theory. The sentence "not all Christians are creationists, nor are all creationists Christians" cannot be changed to read "theists," as I'm fairly certain all (theistic) creationsts are indeed theists.

So far as prominence goes, Christianity should not hold a place above any other Abrahamic religion in this article, especially not Judaism (nor should any of the others hold prominence over Christianity, as well). Fact is, the "records" of creation come from Torah texts, courtesy of Moses, via Judaism before Christianity. That you believe Christians are paying more vocal attention to it does not change the idea's origins, nor does it change that all three Abrahamic religions (largely) hold it in truth.

Christianity may contain more creationists, but its followers were also the first "theistic evolutionists" in the religion scene, if I recall correctly. I can't say that I know of any prominent "theistic evolutionist" Jews or Muslims. Shem 03:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<<"Theistic creationists" meaning those who hold that the universe was created by a deity, as opposed to those who might suggest an extraterrestrial theory.>>
I've heard of suggestions that life on Earth could have been started by extraterrestrials, but extraterrestrials would be inhabitants of the universe, so how could they have created the universe? There seems to be only two choices for creation of the universe: Chance (i.e. Big Bang) or a deity.
<<That you believe Christians are paying more vocal attention to it does not change the idea's origins...>
No, and I agree with you on the origins, but why should prominence in the article reflect origins rather than the size of its following?
<<I can't say that I know of any prominent "theistic evolutionist" Jews or Muslims.>>
See [23] for a brief bit about Muslims and creation. With Jews, I expect that belief in creation is related to strength of conviction regarding Judaism, i.e. strict Jews would accept 6-day creation, liberal Jews would accept evolution. However, as Jews, unlike Christians and Muslims, don't try and win converts, I don't expect that they make a big deal about creation either (both Christian and Muslim creationists use creation as one tool to convince non-believers to convert).
Philip J. Rayment 04:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Throughout this discussion please be aware of the difference between Creationism and Young Earth Creationism. Most Christians (and I imagine Jews and Muslims) are Creationists - i.e. they believe that the Universe was created by God. Outside the US only a minority are Young Earthers. There is already an article on Young Earth Creationism and I think some of the stuff here should go there. DJ Clayworth 21:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The term "creationism" is today used in several senses. One is the one you describe — the belief that the universe, in some form, was originally created by God. Another is the one that is propounded by deniers of biological evolution — the belief that the universe was created in its present form, including Earth and all living genera more or less as they now are. The latter does not have to mean YEC. A person can believe the geological evidence that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old without believing the biological evidence that today's genera developed from earlier genera. —FOo 21:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heya -- a little afraid to jump in here for fear of getting in trouble. i don't have a strong pov here but i like to think i'm well-versed in all pov's involved. lemme know if i piss you off. Ungtss 04:52, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rant-ish: Creationism is the opposite of .. um Evolutionism!?

the following might be somewhat pov, so I won't change the the main article until I've figured out a way to npov it.

Well that's what the intro says at the moment, creationism is the opposite of evolutionism. But um, in modern usage, evolutionism is just a rhetorical straw man. Ie "If you're not a creationist you must be an evolutionist", or "If you're not a christian you must be a satanist". It doesn't actually exist! Even though many folks might think it does. Witches and satanic rituals don't really exist either.

In general no real evolutionists (in the modern sense) have really existed until recently, just like no satanists have existed until some folks got inspired by th wild stories.

From a scientific viewpoint, evolutionism would be a cargo cult.

Ok, now to fix the article based on that.

That'll sort of be a problem though. Defining something as the opposite of something that doesn't exist isn't really a good idea in the first place.

Hmm, I know, how about saying that "Creationism is the belief that the world, and all life was created by God" (This is actually more all inclusive than I used to think :-) ). Leave out the anti bit, I don't think there really is one. (the opposite of creationism might be "Satan created the world"

Oh well, at least no one tried to compare Creationism with the Theory of Evolution, since those are from very disparate branches of philosophy. So thank God no one actually tried that! ;-)

Any suggestions?

Kim Bruning 11:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

heya ... my change. definitely appreciate your thought ... but note: it doesn't say it's the OPPOSITE of. it says it's best understood in CONTRAST TO. the two are different POVs that constantly clash, and you can't really understand the one without the other. as a result, both are best understood "in contrast" to each other -- not as opposites -- but as useful means of understanding the other. also note, what you're upset about isn't the definition. the definition is "Creationism is the belief that the universe and all life were created by the miraculous and creative act of a Deity," which comes first, and stands independent of evolutionism. have i pissed everybody off yet? Ungtss 14:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Very careful wording, that's already pretty good. But hmm...
Well, let's say it's like saying that red is best understood in contrast to flurble. What's flurble? Well I just made it up to find a nice contrast for red.
In the same way evolutionism is sort of a made up thing as a nice contrast for creationism, and it's not actually got so much to do with Theory of Evolution or Biology or even real life or anything like that. :-)
So I'm wondering if it's a good idea to mention it at all. It gives flurble evolutionism more credence than it deserves perhaps. Kim Bruning 14:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
gotcha ... so your objection at its HEART is that "evolutionism" doesn't really exist? i can concede that. lemme try again:). Ungtss 15:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:-) Kim Bruning 15:27, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Any better? Ungtss 16:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Really Close! Just at the end, what's "Atheistic Evolution" ? No topic on that referenced on wikipedia, maybe you're thinking of evolutionism again by another name, by accident like? Hmmm.
Perhaps a better way would be "many creationsts believe there is an contrasting belief, called evolutionism" or somesuch? Would that cover it? Kim Bruning 17:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
how about no reference to evolutionism (as you'd suggested before), because creationism at its heart only asserts that there is a Creator of one type or another, in contrast to any belief that says the universe is purely natural = no creator (including, say buddhism = no creator, not necessarily evolution). eh? Ungtss 17:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's good reasoning and sounds good and best of all solves the problem anyhow. Now the sentence is almost contentless though. *sigh* Ah well. :-)
Just to elucidate: my original objection has to do with there being a difference between Evolutionism and Theory of Evolution. They both contain the word "Evolution", but the similarities tend to end around about there. Folks mix (and match) them up and end up making really *weird* statements :-) Kim Bruning 17:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
True enough -- seems like if we understood our words better we wouldn't have to argue so much:). Thanks for the collaborative efforts, my love:)! Ungtss 18:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
For the record, responding to the statement
<<In the same way evolutionism is sort of a made up thing as a nice contrast for creationism ...>

In my opinion, creationists in the Creationism page should be able to use the word "evolutionist" as a label for the advocates of evolutionary thought at least with the meanings that Charles Darwin used the word "evolutionist." I cite to you just two sentences from the Sixth Edition of Origin of Species. [24]

  1. It is admitted by most evolutionists that mammals are descended from a marsupial form; and if so, the mammary glands will have been at first developed within the marsupial sack.
  2. That species have a capacity for change will be admitted by all evolutionists; but there is no need, as it seems to me, to invoke any internal force beyond the tendency to ordinary variability, which through the aid of selection, by man has given rise to many well-adapted domestic races, and which, through the aid of natural selection, would equally well give rise by graduated steps to natural races or species.

From both of the above sentences, I would conclude that Charles Darwin would subscribe to the phrase, "I am an evolutionist" at least, according to Thomas Huxley when Darwin was talking with Thomas Huxley and Darwin's creationist wife Emma was not around.

Similarly, creationists in the Creationism page should be able to use the word "evolutionism" in the same way that the English newspapers used the word "evolutionism" as a label for the advocacy of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Was the label "evolutionism" a made up word? Yes, at some period in time all the ism words were made up from the word fragments of the previous generations. In fact, by my recollection, most of today's ism words were invented by Charles Darwin's contemporaries. I note in particular Thomas Carlyle's repeated invention of a new ism word as he boldly labeled, contrasted, and criticized the strains of thought competing during Charles Darwin's lifetime.

Since I find no deviation of the modern English dictionary meanings of evolutionist and evolutionism from the usage of Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, I conclude and assert that the creationists should feel free to use the terms evolutionist and evolutionism in the Creationism page with exactly the definitions provided by the modern English dictionary, such as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary, or the American Heritage Dictionary, pick your edition.

Specifically, the following sentence, though more convoluted than necessary, would qualify as NPOV by Wikipedia standards--because this sentence accurately summarizes the contrasting POVs of Charles Darwin and his contemporaries as stated expressly by Charles Darwin and his contemporaries.

  • Creationism stands in contrast to Evolutionism, in that while Evolutionism asserts that life arose through purely naturalistic means, particularly evolution, and not necessarily through the act of any Deity, creationism asserts that life arose through the creative act of God, and not necessarily through evolution. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • rednblue: excellent point, my friend, and that was my first instinct. i think the concern kim was trying to express (or at least my concern) was that evolutionism has theistic and atheistic variants. since there are theistic evolutionists and (conceivably anyway), atheistic creationists (who believe that some intelligent being created life on earth but still do not believe in god), it doesn't make sense to contrast evolutionism with creationism. do you have any ideas for npov ways to describe the ATHEISTIC variety of evolution? or would atheistic evolution work for you? Ungtss 18:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC).

I don't mind whatever you say, but do note that currently there is a difference between

  • The scientific Theory of Evolution, which predicts many things wrt living organisms.
  • The belief of Evolutionism, which may have to do with the origin of this world. I don't know, I've never met a true evolutionist I could ask, and I'm skeptical as to their existence. (Some folks do claim to be evolutionists, but tend to abandon that position under further questioning).

Like RTFA even. If the creationism page wants to contrast with evolutionism, that's fine, but note that there are very few realistic proponents of evolutionism in existence, as far as I'm aware. (Those that exist should probably be put out of their misery). Comparing with such a weak position wouldn't really add much to the article. This is not the place to attack evolutionism though, that'd be at that article. :-)

Kim Bruning 18:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Creationism page is one of those pages where the published scholarly POVs are so clustered at such widely scattered poles that the only way to construct a NPOV lead section is to quote and paraphrase some key scholar in each of the widely separated clusters. For example, the second paragraph of the lead section of Creationism sketching the broad spread of creationist and evolutionist views might have a structure something like the following.

  • Many creationists agree with ... at the Institute for Creation Research who says YEC . . . . In contrast, many creationists agree with Francis Beckwith who says ID . . . . In accepting the "microevolution" portion of evolutionary theory, many creationists agree with ... who says. However, many creationists in accepting all of the findings of evolutionary biology agree with ... who says. . . . Opposed to all the creationists, many atheists agree with Richard Dawkins who says . . . . (I think this paragraph needs some wordsmithing!) :)

It would seem to me that quoting a key scholar in each of the contrasting categories of Mr. Ungtss's interest would satisfy Ms. Bruning's excellent criticisms--that it is unacceptable POV to force labels onto people who object to the labels. I would say that you could quote some scholar who forced those labels onto people; you could say Scholar A forced those labels onto people. But then, it seems to me, you would have to acknowledge and quote the people who object to having those labels forced onto them. Hence, it might be easier to quote a key scholar in each cluster so that the people in that cluster would say, "Hey. I agree with that. I own that label. And I aggee with Mr. Ungtss's characterizations of all those other clusters out there that are wrong."  :)

I would say that Ms. Bruning points to the modern situation in which many modern "evolutionists" reject having the label "evolutionist" forced upon them--a label which Charles Darwin finally owned as his own in the Sixth edition. But if you examine Darwin's first five editions of Origin of Species, you will see that Charles Darwin resisted even having the label "evolution" put on his theory. Hence, the first five editions of Origin of Species contain neither the word evolution nor evolutionist! [25] So for thirteen years after first publishing Origin of Species Darwin himself rejected having the labels evolutionist and evolution put on him and his work. ---Rednblu | Talk 19:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A lot can happen while I'm away for the weekend! Here are my responses to the comments in this section.

  • Are "evolutionist" and "evolutionism" legitimate words?
They are both found in dictionaries, and the Oxford specifically describes "evolutionist" as "a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection." The American Heritage Dictionary describes "evolutionism" as "1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin. 2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution."
  • Is it appropriate to use the words if the evolutionists don't use the terms of themselves?
* If you don't use these terms, what do you use instead to convey the same meaning?
* If creationists have to put us with their views being described as Creation myths on the grounds that the term is accurate, why shouldn't evolutionists have to put up with the use of the terms "evolutionist" and "evolutionism" on the same grounds?

Philip J. Rayment 01:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Completion of the Creationism page break out to reduce Creationism page size

I plan on moving the "Creationism in public education" section to the Creationism in public education page according to the ToDo list we have been discussing as a means of bringing the Creationism page size to within reasonable limits. Does anybody have any new objections or discussion? ---Rednblu | Talk 05:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

one thought -- i think it might be more npov to title the page, "Creation and evolution in public education" -- ultimately, you're teaching one, the other, or both -- and THAT's what the issue is about. thoughts? Ungtss 16:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Much better title, in my opinion. I will go ahead and change the ToDo list. Anybody can revert the ToDo list if they have different ideas. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that Creationism in public education still needs to exist in some way, such as a redirect, as people will search for this phrase. CheeseDreams 20:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
sounds great. any dissent? Ungtss 20:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(echo) sounds great. any dissent? ---Rednblu | Talk 05:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you must move something from this page, remove some of the Genesis stuff which appears in other articles; why explain day-age creationism when you can just link to it? Also notice that the link from Creation_belief says: Some fundamentalist religious groups assert that creation beliefs should replace or complement so-called "scientific" accounts of the development of life and the cosmos. For a description of this debate, see creationism. I think the article in its current form really is about the debate, and I think that despite the opening paragraph of this article, creationism is today widely understood to mean a stance opposed to evolution, and not including Theistic Evolution. But I'm sure this has been gone over before. -Fleacircus 21:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Are you dissenting to either the existance of Creationism in public education as a redirect, or of the seperation of the education section? Or are you requesting some other things to be removed (if so, can I put a new header above your comment as it isnt really about the matter of this section?)? CheeseDreams 22:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was dissenting to the separation of the evolution vs. creationism to another page. What content belongs on this page, however, that isn't covered by Creation_belief and the various specific pages for each creation belief system? Should this page should be about the creationist side of the creationist vs. evolution debate, as it now seems? Should this be discussed in a new section? [changed indenting of CD's comment]-Fleacircus 22:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, it should not. Please review the todo list, and notice that this page should be a series of summaries with links to main articles in the same style as the Evolution page. CheeseDreams 22:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV of the page title Creation accounts in Genesis

Let me summarize what may be a POV problem with the page title Creation accounts in Genesis. I open this question here because the master ToDo list for the Creationism series is maintained at the top of this TalkPage.

  • According to some POVs, there are two creation accounts in Genesis. But according to other POVs, there is only one creation account described from two perspectives. Hence, there is a POV problem having the plural "accounts" in the title of the page. Have I accurately stated the POV difficulty? ---Rednblu | Talk 06:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Yessir -- that's the heart of it. Ungtss 18:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe we could think of a name that would avoid the parenthesis in account(s)? Would the page title Creation as in Genesis work? Or is there a better title something like that? ---Rednblu | Talk 20:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Beautiful. Do you concur, Mr. Cheesedreams? Ungtss 21:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think Creation according to Genesis would be better and use less colloquial english than as in. CheeseDreams 00:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Before we go changing the title, can someone clarify as to who believes that there is only one creation account? As a 6-day creationist, I consider it to be quite clear that there are two accounts. (What I don't agree with is that the two accounts are in any way inconsistent or contradictory.) Actually, looking again at what Rednblu said, is that some believe that there is "one creation account described from two perspectives". Are we just playing with words here? What does "account" mean in this context? Does the very use of the word somehow indicate inconsistency or something? Philip J. Rayment 00:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some people have significant issues with the page title, as you can see here. I think a change would remove this dispute and produce a title percieved as neutral by more readers than the current varient. CheeseDreams 00:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
<<can someone clarify as to who believes that there is only one creation account>>

Sorry for the lack of history in the proposal. Here is a short explanation of history. I jumped into a little tussle :) and proposed a compromise. Someone renamed the "accounts" page to read "account(s)" and a little revert tussle erupted in my opinion. :) I proposed a compromise to remove the varieties of the word account from the page title completely.

I like Mr. Dreams's suggestion of Creation according to Genesis best of all. Does anybody have see a fault in that title? Is there any reason to retain some variation of the word account? ---Rednblu | Talk 01:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sorry i missed all this discussion -- i like creation according to genesis best of all. i was the one that had problems with accounts ... because i think that by its very nature it implies that there IS (pov) a contradiction in the passage. maybe that's just the way i read it ... but i LOVE "Creation according to Genesis" best of all, because it dodges the issue entirely. Dissent? Ungtss 03:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Notable evolutionary biologists who believe in god

In the section about belief in god vs evolution (philosophical naturalism, or something), there is mention of Ashley Montague as a notable advocate of both God and Evolution. Who the hell is Ashley Montagu? Could we put someone of World standing here instead, so that it actually becomes meaningful to people outside of wherever it is that Ashley Montagu has been heard of? CheeseDreams 21:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is the Wikipedia link to Ashley Montagu sufficient? ---Rednblu | Talk 02:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, it shows he is significant in the subject of "female genital mutilation", but not really much else. Is there something significant with respect to creationism he has done, and if so, why isn't it mentioned in his article? CheeseDreams 00:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Retroactive proposals on Accounts in Genesis section

1) i'd like to change the name of the "creation accountS in genesis" page to "creation account(s) in genesis" 2) i'd like permission to remove the text in the creation account(s) section, and leave a simple link to the new page.

any thoughts?

Ungtss 21:56, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1) This should be discussed on the talk page of Creation accounts in Genesis
2) Why? Standard wikipedia practice is to summarise subarticles on the main page. When the article is controversial (e.g. the article is disputed/ about disputes), it is standard practice to summarise both sides of the controversy, where possible without stopping the section being a summary.
CheeseDreams 22:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1) posting both places because i want to make sure somebody besides you hears this. summary on the page, fine -- whatever -- have your happyfuntime (although i think that the controversy is not pertinent to the discussion, as CREATIONISTS do not ascribe to mr cheesedreams pet interpretation of the text -- but whatever -- as long as there's equal time, i'm cool). i would like to ask for a vote, however, on whether to change the title of the article to account(s). Thoughts? Ungtss 23:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1) But this is the talk page for Creationism. People interested in talking about the Creation accounts in Genesis page will talk there not here. They will talk here to talk about Creationism, in the same way that to talk about Pythagoras they will talk there, not here. This is not the talk page for the whole of Wikipedia.
What pet interpretation? My POV of the text is irrelevant to Wikipedia, which is a NPOV enterprise. If you look at the Creationism account(s) in Genesis section (which I have not written 1 word of, by the way), you will see that both positions (i.e. that of there being 1 account and that of there being 2 accounts) are given equal weighting, which is the NPOV thing to do. CheeseDreams 23:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
i thank you for that.

I HEARBY APOLOGIZE FOR RESPONDING TO CHEESEDREAM'S INCIVILITY WITH INCIVILITY OF MY OWN. please forgive my error. Ungtss 23:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss incivility unless the incivility was committed here. Please comment on it where it was committed so that interested parties are actually able to see the comments in context, so that it actually makes sense to them CheeseDreams 23:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
and i apologize for that.

(For a continuation of this conversation, see /Talk.)

Essay by 65.6.59.190, for discussion

--- Begin cut of essay

      • ce chap. 3 pp. 34-37 What Does Genesis Say? ***

How Did Genesis Know?

31 Many find it hard to accept this creation account. They contend that it is drawn from the creation myths of ancient peoples, primarily those from ancient Babylon. However, as one recent Bible dictionary noted: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe” and the myths “are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb[rew] monotheism of [Genesis] 1-2.”3 Regarding Babylonian creation legends, the trustees of the British Museum stated: “The fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different.”4

32 From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.

33 All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.

34 The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

35 However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there, knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life?

--- End cut of essay

What is the point of this essay? ---Rednblu | Talk 02:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In this article, probably no point. And it is wrong in claiming that the Biblical order of creation and the order of evolution are the same. Philip J. Rayment 02:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
yeah ... seems like some strong pov essay stuff ... good thoughts tho -- to whoever wrote it: if you're interested, i'd like to work together on finding a way to integrate your thoughts effectively into an article on my person page ... particularly the "creation vs evolution debate" ... but as it stands, i don't support it. Ungtss 02:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Its nonsense. The order of creation could be guessed by anyone. Like god would create man, and then create the earth, and then create existence?. To claim that the mathematical chance of randomly matching it to evolution is significant is deliberately obfuscating the fact that most of the sequence is obvious.
Besides, 7 should actually be 1.5, and 8 is 5.5. and 5 & 4 are the wrong way around, as are 2 & 3. The quote from the British museum is a lie - see this article (also note that the trustees discuss funding etc. and are businessmen, it is the curators that comment on comparisons between ancient beliefs etc, and are academics). And this neglects the OTHER creation account in the Psalms involving Behemoth and Leviathon, which match other creation myths remarkably well (even explaining why the otherwise random references are there). And it also neglects the other creation account in Genesis - the one which was mostly cut out, leaving only a rather odd reference to Nephilim (Bible). However, this is irrelevant to this article. CheeseDreams 21:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The People for the American Way Poll

Disregarding the the other biases in the article, I would have to say that quoting the PAW poll as greater than 50% support for teaching creationism is the same as quoting 99% support for teaching Christianity by defining 'teaching Christianity' as 'mentioning the Bible in class.' Historical and philisophical education is vastly different from scientific education.

The Edwards v. Aguillard quote

First, the link to the wiki entry for Edwards v. Aguillard is right there (and I moved the quote there); second, this is in a section that was supposedly moved to a daughter page; it should be short.

I think we can reach a one or two sentence summary that we can agree upon. How about this:

Most recently, the Supreme Court has held in their ruling of Edwards_v._Aguillard that laws concerning theories of origins (even creationist ones) taught in public schools must have a secular purpose and scientific merit, using the test laid down in Lemon_v._Kurtzman.

-Fleacircus 20:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sounds good ... think you're right about keeping it short ... how about we either cut any reference to evolution or creation (as it is now ... just "a variety"), or list them in parallel (i.e. evolutionistic, creationistic, or any other theory) ... by the way, appreciate the help on weeding out my POV:). Ungtss 21:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What you put up is fine with me. I think it's important to note that the SC decision does give special place to evolution; it is the "prevailing scientific theory" in the first sentence. By my reading the quote is pretty much saying that if creationism wants to get into science class, it needs to be presented and presentable as science.
I have POV too of course.. I don't want to overstep into that either. -Fleacircus 21:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
that's the way i read it too -- basically, "listen, creationists -- if you want in the game, quit trying to censor the real scientists (by banning evolution) or subsidizing your own beliefs (by requiring equal time regardless of scientific merit) and COME UP WITH SOMETHING WORTH TEACHING:)." sorry:). end pov rant:). Ungtss 21:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The way I see it is belonging on Talk:Creation and evolution in public education. Shall I move this discussion there? CheeseDreams 21:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi CheeseDreams... I think this discussion should be linked to over there, but it needs to stay here, even if copied over there.
I'd like to remind everyone on this discussion that they are dealing with someone alleged to be a 'notorious usenet troll' (see that discussion way up above this post.) and that wrapping up good articles with endless disscussion is one of the goals of trolls on wikipedia. This article needs some sort of disclaiming verbiage. Without it it is crackpottery, with it, it can be handled as NPOV without constant reference to who disagrees wihth the theory.Pedant 22:59, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Cheesdreams: I don't see why you want to move the discussion since it is done. And since we were talking about what should appear on this page, and we reached an agreement, what's the problem? -Fleacircus 18:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Space. CheeseDreams 22:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Creation in Australia

I removed:

Creationism remains a minority position within Australia, closely associated with evangelical fundamentalists such as Fred Nile. It has not received anything near the social or legislative prominence accorded to it within the United States.

The first phrase is redundant, the reference to "evangelical fundamentalists" is (what's the term?) perjorative?, it is no more associated with Fred Nile than many other people, I question whether it has any less social prominence than in the U.S.A, and from what I can gather, it hasn't achieved any legislative prominence in the U.S.A. anyway, with most legislative attempts being rejected. Philip J. Rayment 02:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the fact that there even is regular discussion about legislative aspects of creation means it has a lot more (legislative) prominence than in any other major industrialized country. One thinge we recently hashed out on the Flood geology page is that most Creation science is not so much rejected by scientist, as ignored, since most scientists (and certainly most scientists outside the US) are not even aware of the fact that this is pushed as a serious scientific position. --Stephan Schulz 14:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If "legislative attempts" and similar are factors in "legislative prominence", then I will probably concede that point, notwithstanding that some years ago there was some sort of requirement to give equal time to creation in Queensland, if I understood that situation adequately. Philip J. Rayment 15:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Something went wrong

In the edit of 20:20, 24 Nov 2004, something went wrong. Can somebody figure it out and fix it? ---Rednblu | Talk 06:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's ok now; I changed the Links section from <h4> to ====. Now the sections seem to work. ---Ben Standeven 02:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I formatted the Creationism page in the standard Main Article summary and layout that is used, for example, in the Evolution and Human pages as has been discussed on this TalkPage for over a year. Please refer to the Creationism archives and subsequent discussions if you have any questions. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summaries of other articles shouldnt be here because it's redundant and can cause inconsistency when one of the pages covering the same subject changes while the other remains unchanged. Grice 10:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summaries of "Main articles" are the Wikipedia standard, as you can see in the Evolution and Human pages, just for two examples. Can you give me a Wikipedia example of a page where "Summaries of 'Main articles'" was considered by the Wikipedia community to be "redundant and causing inconsistency"? ---Rednblu | Talk 15:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Creationism and philosophical naturalism section

I've corrected sentence introducing Phillip E. Johnson to reflect that Phillip Johnson's claims are not general, but highly particular.--FeloniousMonk 06:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, it would be in the article's interest to add some context around the Phillip E. Johnson bit with some of the opposing viewpoints for balance.--FeloniousMonk 06:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i agree ... in fact, i think that we would do well to make a daughter article that covers this topic in detail with a number of arguments on all sides -- because it really is the heart of the debate, i think. what do you think? Ungtss 14:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody else think this page needs a major reworking?

It seems to me that this page is really poor. There isn't a well-defined use of the term "creationist". The opening paragraph seems to indicate that a creationist is someone who believes in Genesis creation. However, later on there are references to a 1997 Gallup poll that was completely neutral to whether the respondent was a believer in a Judeo-Christian formulation or some other formulation of theism. Furthermore, there are "creationists" who believe such things as the Earth and even the universe was "created" by aliens, for example. Is this a form of creationism? If not, then we should really define what exactly we are talking about. 67.172.158.8 17:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

defining yec

you can't place yec as a straw-man in opposition to science -- that's one pov. the yec folks believe that science SUPPORTS a young earth. to set YEC in "opposition" to science in the first paragraph is pov ... and an especially damaging pov on a page like this. as to the "scientific consensus," it was Karl Popper who said, "I don't believe that success proves anything." Ungtss 00:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the UK certainly most people use the term YEC to describe those that assert that the scientific method would back up their beliefs. I'm sure there are those that take the belief without believing in the scientific method but are they common enough to warrant discussion? I reverted to Ungtss' version. Barnaby dawson 16:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are definitely people who are YECs that use evidence other than that from science to back up their assertions. As such, the statement is too narrow to be correct. 67.172.158.8 18:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be some clamoring for a removal of the statement that most YECs are fundamentalists. This is surprising, because it is definitely one of the primary perspectives of every YEC I've ever met. 67.172.158.8 16:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Fundamentalist" carries connotations and meanings that many if not most YECs disagree with, even if the use of the word is technically correct. Also, many sceptics appear to consider YECs fundamentalist by definition, in which case saying that a YEC is also a fundamentalist is redundant. Philip J. Rayment 01:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have yet to meet a YEC who, when asked, didn't admit to being a fundamentalist. Can you point in the direction of any that are. The only reason that the line was included was to distinguish between those creationists who are not fundamentalists. I will change the term to "biblical literalist"
I won't admit to it, at least not until it is defined. What I said was that it "carries connotations and meaning that ... YECs disagree with". "Fundamentalist" originally meant someone who believed the fundamental truths of the Bible. I have also heard it use to mean a literalist. In popular and media use these days it means a religious extremist, sometimes bordering on a terrorist. Now do you understand why YECs don't like the term applied to them? Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
i'm pretty much yec and definitely not fundamentalist. i don't believe in inerrancy, i don't believe that only christians get to heaven (in fact, i don't even necessarily believe in heaven), i don't believe God's omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent, and I haven't been to church in 3 years because i think, on the whole, the church is a crock and has been since a generation or two after Jesus. yet i still find genesis to be the most reasonable explanation of our origins, and the teachings of Jesus to be the truest we've ever been blessed with. Ungtss 03:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect to user Ungtss, if he is as he claims then he is in a definite minority with respect to the YEC population. I wonder that user Ungtss is a YEC yet claims that he doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. What evidence from astronomy, for example, do you disbelieve so strongly that Genesis seems to be a more scientific text than an intro astronomy text? Do you actually evaluate the claims of geology, astronomy, chemistry, nuclear physics, etc. and find them wanting? What references do you use to support your claims? Do any of the writers of these references (or anybody else you've met) hold a similar position to your own?
I submit that unless user Ungtss can provide evidence that he is not alone in his opinions and that there is a substantial portion of the YEC community like him, the edit he is promoting is a vanity edit and strictly not permitted in Wikipedia. I will wait three days before changing the edit back to hear from user Ungtss for the evidence. I submit that the vast majority of YECs are believers in biblical literalism if not Christian fundamentalism. 67.172.158.8 17:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
<<I submit that unless user Ungtss can provide evidence that he is not alone in his opinions and that there is a substantial portion of the YEC community like him, the edit he is promoting is a vanity edit and strictly not permitted in Wikipedia.>>
first of all, it is not a vanity edit when i refuse to allow you to associate a belief with a certain people group without citation, especially when i personally do not fit the association, and the association uses politically and religiously charged terms such as "fundamentalist." you are attempting to assert something as fact which i know not to be fact. if you'd like to present a cited, quoted poll showing what percentage of YECs are fundamentalists, go ahead. as it stands, it's just your word against mine. and i won't allow you to state things as fact that i know not to be fact. i am not a fundamentalist, my roommates are not fundamentalist, many personal friends of mine in africa and the middle east are not fundamentalist ... yet somehow we're still YEC. don't tell us we're something we're not. it's strawman, namecalling bs. Ungtss 21:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you both. "Fundamentalist" is a pejorative word, plain and simple. And I don't think any of my YEC friends would appreciate being called one. Samboy 10:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fundamentalist is not pejorative in its definition, though it may have pejorative connotations. We can call them "biblical literalists" if you like. 67.172.158.8 17:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
<<What evidence from astronomy, for example, do you disbelieve so strongly that Genesis seems to be a more scientific text than an intro astronomy text?>>
first, if you take a look at the genesis account, it doesn't claim that God created the universe in 6 days -- in fact, before God created ANYTHING, his "spirit moved over the waters." To my reading, there was something on Earth before God did anything to the Earth, and the days of creation are just God's preparation of a preexisting earth for life. so your "age of the universe models" are irrelevent to my opinion of the date when God did everything he claimed to do to the earth.
This is strictly a different opinion from YEC. Afterall, it doesn't follow from the Ussher-Lighfoot calendar. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
and who said Ussher was the authority in YEC, any more than Darwin was the authority on evolution? Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
secondly, i find the genesis interpretation (although not necessarily literally 1 day) to be much more reasonable than star and planetary formation models in your "introductory astronomy text," which fail to explain how hydrogen clouds were able to violate the laws of gas in a vaccuum long enough to begin fusion
If you want to know about interstellar gas dynamics, shouldn't you research it? I have been an astronomer for some time and have yet to see a convincing argument that hydrogen clouds "violate" the laws of gas dynamics. By the way, "laws of gas in a vacuum" makes no sense.67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
the laws of gas in a vaccuum simply means "How the Gas laws cause gas to behave in a vaccuum. what's hard about that plain english? Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
without the intervention of an outside force,
There is an outside force -- a lot of them. Sometimes shockwaves cause star formation. Cooling functions allow for clouds to collapse. I'm not sure where the myth of an intractable problem came from.67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
i would greatly appreciate some reference to back up your conclusion -- preferably something that explains, blow by blow, exactly what those shockwaves are composed of, and how the nebula failed to obey the Gas laws prior to the explosion long enough to be close enough to explode. consensus from my coursework and research is, "nobody has a friggin' clue." Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
how the disks began to rotate,
See conservation of angular momentum. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
that doesn't do a thing to explain how the disks began to rotate. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
how planets of such radically different substance congealed from the same nebula,
See planetary formation models and differentiation of protoplanetary disks. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
i've seen them ... i find them laughable. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
how we came to have a moon in such perfectly balanced orbit that is currently RECEDING from the Earth,
Typical psuedoscientific claim: [26] 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
<<The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm/year. Since the moon is 3.85 * 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old. >>
is that supposed to mean something? i asked how the earth came to have a moon, with the moon so perfectly balanced in orbit, and slowly receding. you gave me a silly conclusory statement that didn't address the issue. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
how many planets came to rotate the opposite way of all the other planets, how many moons came to revolve the opposite way of other moons.
[27] 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
<<The "backwards" planets and moons are in no way contrary to the nebular hypothesis. Part of the hypothesis is that the nebula of gas and dust would accrete into planetessimals. Catastrophic collisions between these would be part of planet-building. Such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons. >>
is that conclusory crap supposed to impress anybody? how did it HAPPEN? "such collisions and other natural processes can account for the retrograde planets and moons." HOW!? Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I find it most reasonable to believe that a designer or god of some sort arranged our solar system in roughly the order described in Genesis. not necessarily 6 days (although it could well have been), but certainly not the billions of years asserted by these pseudoscientific planetary formation models foisted as fact on an ignorant public by a scientific community bent on supporting its rampant atheistic/agnostic bias against all reason. Ungtss 21:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your POV as to the motivations behind a community of literally tens of thousands in academe is really quite alarmist. Perhaps you should do a more careful bit of research before getting on a shrill high-horse. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
that's good. ad hominem and no rebuttal. i'm getting to like this. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Do you actually evaluate the claims of geology, astronomy, chemistry, nuclear physics, etc. and find them wanting?>>

I find that the empirically observable and verifiable facts of geology, astronomy, chemistry, and nuclear physics (which i have studied at least somewhat, and accept as far as i've studied) show evolutionary models for star, planet, and life formation to be self-contradictory and ridiculous.
But have failed to provide even one example that isn't easily shown to be claptrap. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
no sir. you've failed to explain any of these pseudoscientific efforts to explain away reality. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
don't confuse true science with the pseudoscientific speculation of evolutionary origins. i accept the former, and reject the latter. Ungtss 21:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And don't confuse planetary formation with biological evolution. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
the only thing they have in common is a lot of nonsense. Ungtss 21:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<What references do you use to support your claims?>>

foremost, my personal research and common sense.
Really? Does your personal research encompass actually doing the physics in the models that you claim don't work physically? 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
beyond that, the ever-growing body of creationist literature which is based more and more on science and less and less on dogma, as the creationist community finally "grows up" out of its medeival foolishness. Ungtss 21:52, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Most creationist literature writers are very upfront about the fact that they are NPOV. Moreso than it seems you are willing to be. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have read Ungtss' comments and remain unimpressed. Here is the Wikipedia definition for YEC:

I have responded to the above claims of Ungtss. I just couldn't let the nonsense keep. User Ungtss truly doesn't have a grasp on the science involved in the popular level "debate" of creationism vs. science. I submit that his attempts to paint himself as having the higher ground are nigh on ridiculous. 67.172.158.8 21:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And your attempts to do likewise, whilst making an artificial distinction between "science" and "creationism" are ironic. Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God a relatively short time ago. The belief is held by the Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Genesis is a historical account.

There is no account of any claim to science in the first paragraph. I will not take the time to debunk the incorrect science stated by user Ungtss, since he can edit any of the statements in the Wikipedia library if he were really to believe this (for example, he could edit the article on the conservation of angular momentum if he believes that there is no way to get rotation in astrophysical gas clouds), but I have edited the definition to my satisfaction. YEC relies either on a faith-based rejection of modern science (as pseudoscience or as naturalism or as secularism) but is not on the whole necessarily scientific.

As to the claim that there are no references to this, the reasonable thing to do is refer to self-described Young Earth Creationists. Polling makes no sense because the term is self-descriptive. I can refer to any number of websites that reject prevailing scientific notions of astronomy, geology, biology, physics, etc. in favor of Young Earth Creationism. As such, they necessarily reject scientific statements. I can also refer to most Young Earth Creationist literature as accepting a literal interpretation of Genesis. Therefore, I have justified my edits and will continue to maintain the position. 67.172.158.8 02:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<YEC relies either on a faith-based rejection of modern science >>
No, this is a misrepresentation.
This is true. There are those that rely on a faith-based rejection of modern science.
Like who? I don't doubt that there are some somewhere, but it is not typical of creationists. Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
<<I can refer to any number of websites that reject prevailing scientific notions of astronomy, geology, biology, physics, etc. in favor of Young Earth Creationism.>>
As Ungtss said, "don't confuse true science with the pseudoscientific speculation of evolutionary origins". YECs reject the uniformitarian assumptions and their consequences in astronomy, etc. They don't reject true science. Philip J. Rayment 02:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<I have edited the definition to my satisfaction.>>

this page is not here for your "satisfaction." it is here for npov. Ungtss 03:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I editted it to npov standard. My satisifcation stems from NPOV.
npov is not determined by your satisfaction, but by consensus satisfaction according to the rules of the game. Ungtss 09:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Consensus in science is determined by the rigors of the scientific method, which YEC fails on many accounts. Read the article on science if you don't believe me. 128.138.96.220 20:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
not according the The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Scientific consensus is reached by common ideology, and what scientists have been taught and built their reputations on. scientific revolutions come from outsiders who actually have the guts to apply the scientific method. as to whether or not YEC fails, that's one pov among two, both of which deserve representation on this page. Ungtss 21:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
While Kuhn makes valid points, he is not the arbiter of science. The Baconian ideal still stands and that's the scientific method. What Kuhn did was characterize the flavor but not the methodology. 67.172.158.8 17:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
what he did was to describe exactly how and why the scientific community consistently fails to live up to its baconian ideals. Ungtss 19:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Did you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Kuhn does no such thing. He takes a functionalist approach to the study and describes how, for example, the history of science and science texts are a misrepresentation of science in practice. There is no description of the scientific community failing to live up to Baconian ideals -- indeed, Kuhn advocates the opposite in his forward. If you have a beef with the scientific community, that's fine, but imposing this belief onto authors who don't share it is a little strange. 67.172.158.8 20:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
he said the "history of science" texts are a misrepresentation of the history of science, because they claim that science is an unbroken line of progression (the baconian ideal) while in fact it's a series of huge jumps by outsiders who buck a scientific community unwilling to think outside the box. Ungtss 21:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The main bit on which I "don't believe you" is the bit that "YEC fails on many accounts". And the article on science says nothing about that. Philip J. Rayment 14:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Take the Age of the Earth article referenced in the definition, if you don't believe me. 67.172.158.8 17:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That article also says nothing like "YEC fails on many accounts". Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<As to the claim that there are no references to this, the reasonable thing to do is refer to self-described Young Earth Creationists.>>

then start describing them as they describe themselves: creation scientists.
Not all Young Earth Creationists are creation scientists. Some are simply proponents of of a literal Genesis.
not all evolutionists are scientists either. some of them just believe in the fictional computer-generated missing links they're shown on the discovery channel. Ungtss 09:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strawman. There isn't any claim in the statement about "evolutionists" being "evolutionary scientists". The statement is about YEC and you claim that they are really "creation scientists". If not all "evolutionists" are scientists that doesn't mean that we can't point out that not all YEC are scientists. 128.138.96.220 20:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
true enough -- but that wasn't what i was trying to argue. i was arguing that you can't put "mainstream scientists" against "biblical literalist fundamentalists." you have to put "mainstream scientists and unemployed discovery-channel watchers" against "creation scientists and snake-handlers." Ungtss 21:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There was no pitting. It was a simple statement about what the group of YECs believe in general. They do reject statements about the age of the Earth. I'm surprised that user Philip doesn't think that the article referencing the age of the Earth is scientific. Perhaps he can tell me what it is if it isn't scientific. If he manages to do that, then I'll agree to keep the editorial removal of the term. Otherwise it's going back in. 67.172.158.8 17:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
the pitting comes in lining up "scientists believe this" and "creationists, who are mostly fundamentalists, believe this." as to whether dating methods are scientific, how do scientists know how much radioactive material was in the rock, originally, in order to calculate the age of the rock? Ungtss 19:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into the scientific debate here. After all, you can read the Age of the Earth article for yourself where the matter belongs anyway. I'm not lining up any "scientists" believe this, "creationists" believe that. It is a fact that creationists reject scientific statements as to the age of the Earth. 67.172.158.8 20:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
it's not a fact that the methods are scientific. it's disputed. the age of the earth article very clearly CALLS them scientific, and then very clearly goes on to explain how a series of failed methods based on silly assumptions (like, "there was no lead in the original rock" by holmes) gave way to still other flawed and unreliable attempts, until it was finally voted on in the 20s by a nearly unanymously atheistic organization,
This is beside the point. First, the unsubstantiated atheistic claim is merely an ad hominem for you to state, but the last sentence in the Age of the Earth article states it all. Just look into how the work was done and evaluated. It's very meticulous and you've obviously not read it.
look. what i'm saying is very simple, and i'd appreciate a direct response instead of this elephant hurling.
The methods are agreed upon and agreed to be free of bias by the people that agree with them. Not by others (i.e. YECs). Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
STILL without providing any scientific basis for the assumptions regarding the original level of radiation in the rock.
"Original level of radiation"? You've got to be kidding me. We know what causes radioactivity: it's radionuclei. We know that there are parent and daughter nuclei relationships. None of that is argued. If you are arguing about contamination, you can see this is a silly argument here: [28]
unless you can explain to me how scientists know the relative proportion of radioactive elements in the original rock,
See above.
it is BOGUS for you to call them scientific on a page about people who think they're bs. Ungtss 21:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since I have demonstrated this to be the case, I will revert the edit. 67.172.158.8 21:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God a relatively short time ago. The belief is held by the Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Genesis is a historical account.>>

i wrote that paragraph, biased fundamentalist that i am. the paragraph contains no reference to science or anti-science, because that is an area of pov dispute -- and this definition was much the same, before you introduced your hackneyed "creationists reject science" pov. if you want that pov in the definition, then you have to allow the creationist pov that they are scientific. if you don't want the creationist pov in the definition, then you've got to cut yours out too. those are the rules of npov. don't address the issue, or address both sides. anything less is bs. Ungtss 03:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am willing to live with the current incarnation. However, I will probably edit the YEC article. 67.172.158.8 04:59, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<This is beside the point. First, the unsubstantiated atheistic claim is merely an ad hominem for you to state, but the last sentence in the Age of the Earth article states it all. Just look into how the work was done and evaluated. It's very meticulous and you've obviously not read it.>>

look. what i'm saying is very simple, and i'd appreciate a direct response instead of this elephant hurling. you base your conclusion of the age of the rock on the rate of decay (known), the current element proportion (known), and the original element proportion (unknown). how do you know what the original proportion was, in order to calculate how long the elements have been decaying to arrive at their present level? Ungtss 22:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link: [29] ~

i appreciate the link. from a creationist pov, it fails to answer this objection. Ungtss 22:30, 6 Jan 2005

(UTC)

This objection holds no water:[30]
it holds water to my reading. Ungtss 22:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From your site:

Radiometric rock dating, the methodology of determining the date of formation of a rock sample by the well-established rate of decay of the isotopes contained, depends on accurately determination of the starting points, the original concentrations of the isotopes.

From my site:

Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known.
In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that you know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)
With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D / D2 is initially the same in all of the samples. Plotting P / D2 on the x axis and D / D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line which is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D / D2 was not initially the same in all samples, the data points would tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line.
For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable.
  • Potassium-argon dating, for example, assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products. Ar/Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon.
  • The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize.
  • Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of C14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected.
  • Fission-track dating assumes that newly-solidified minerals will not have fission-tracks in them.

The article is untractable and doesn't deal with the simple explanations provided. It is also the reason I reverted. Joshuaschroeder 23:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i understand that. but you've only quoted the intro to my article, without even considering the length of it on isochron dating.

The general theme of the article and its contents are well-refuted in the previous article quoted. Are you asking for a point-by-point clarification?

<<Potassium-argon dating, for example, assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals.>>

that assumes the original level of argon in the crystals. it says it's "usually excluded," but doesn't say under what circumstances it is INCLUDED ... or why the rock could not have been CREATED with the argon intact. i'm not saying creationism is right. i'm just saying it has a pov that needs to be articulated on this page. Ungtss 23:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Argon, being a noble gas, cannot form crystals. The only way to get argon in a rock is for it to cool quickly which will in turn not allow for crystal formation. To deny this fact about argon is to question the measured vapor pressure of argon, the laws of chemistry, etc. Joshuaschroeder 23:44, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
an article about excess argon. whether the article is well-refuted is a matter of point of view. both povs must be represented here. Ungtss 23:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but ICR is incorrect here. The K-Ar measurements that are believable are only done with slow forming crystals which necessarily have no excess Ar. The only way to get excess Ar in a crystal is to form it above at a pressure equivalent to the vapor pressure of Ar at the temperatures required. The phase diagrams for the interior of the Earth (where crystals form -- not in lava flows as the article harps) doesn't allow for this.
It's not a matter of POV when a group is incorrect. There is no problem with K-Ar dating when used incorrectly. And that's, of course, not the sum total of radiometric dating. Joshuaschroeder 01:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you've lost me. You appear to be saying that the only way to get excess Ar in a crystal is for it to be under pressure, as happens deep in the earth. But the examples in the article, which you dismiss as being from lava flows, are therefore not under this pressure and therefore should not have excess argon, but do. What am I missing here?
<<It's not a matter of POV when a group is incorrect.>>
But whether or not they are incorrect is disputed, and therefore a POV! Therefore the article needs to take that POV into account.
Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

perhaps if you'd read the article more thoroughly, you would have noticed this:

Further confirmation comes from diamonds, which form in the mantle and are carried by explosive volcanism into the upper crust and to the surface. When Zashu et al. obtained a K-Ar isochron "age" of 6.0±0.3 Ga for 10 Zaire diamonds, it was obvious excess 40Ar* was responsible, because the diamonds could not be older than the earth itself.14 These same diamonds produced 40Ar/39Ar "age" spectra yielding a ~5.7 Ga isochron.15 It was concluded that the 40Ar is an excess component which has no age significance and is found in tiny inclusions of mantle-derived fluid.
cited to:
S. Zashu, M. Ozima and O. Nitoh, "K-Ar Isochron Dating of Zaire Cubic Diamonds," Nature, 323 (1986): pp. 710-712.
15 M. Ozima, S. Zashu, Y. Takigami and G. Turner, "Origin of the Anomalous 40Ar-36Ar Age of Zaire Cubic Diamonds: Excess 40Ar in Pristine Mantle Fluids," Nature, 337 (1989): pp. 226-229.
Ungtss 01:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is an old claim, one that was bantered about by Henry Morris. The talkorigins archive has the following to say about the very article you site (4th response down) [31]
Christ Stassen says this about the particular example you give:
I investigated this some time ago and wrote a response (1998) but could not find it in Google news. When I am home I will check my archives there. I think the answer is mixing in this case, and was demonstrated in a followup paper by Ozima by comparing chlorine ratios. But that is just off the top of my head, and it has been five years since I researched this example.
The incremental heating Ar-Ar method was applied in this case, but essentially no argon was released up to the temperature where the whole diamond disintegrated. The result is a plot with basically one data point, which is no better than a straight K-Ar assessment. The 'standard' test for mixing doesn't work on Ar-Ar because of the correction for atmospheric argon.
The YEC's may be right that the result wouldn't have been viewed with as much skepticism if it hadn't been so obviously wrong, however there are plenty of results in accordance with mainstream geology that have been investigated and stood up to equivalent skepticism. And this one example is a non-issue as far as the reliability of isotope dating goes since mixing was demonstrated.
It is funny that the YEC incredulity is not extended to their own ideas as much as they are extended to a single erroneous argon mixing problem. There is no doubt that a preponderance of the evidence is used in geology, and that this is a legitimate use.
To put it another way, there are cataloged literally tens of thousands of isochron datings that give consistent results. I wouldn't expect a YEC to go through each and every one of them, and they don't. Instead they latch on to the anamolies and cry foul. It's a typical creationist tactic that misses the forest for the trees, so to speak. Joshuaschroeder 02:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
all of which may be well true -- i'm just here to write an npov article:). my question is, if K/Ar dating is only accurate in slow-forming crystals formed in the mantle, then exactly how much of current rock can be dated accurately by K/Ar? Ungtss 03:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some, not all. Of course, any mineral that has a naturally occuring abundance of potassium is going to be a better radiometer, so to speak. The truth is that there are dozens of isochron methods. See radiometric dating for more. Joshuaschroeder 03:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thanks:). Ungtss 03:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creationism/Archive_4&oldid=1267591254"