This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I think one of the allegations about evolution that creationists make is that given what we know about how evolution would work, if it were an accurate theory, there wasn't enough time for humans to evolve. Unless I'm misremembering, this is worth including, along with the scientific refutation
Several images overlap with text and need to be reformatted properly.-- ragesoss 05:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Which in particular? It may have something to do with the way the software talks to your browser. I'm not seeing any problems on the page. -- ScienceApologist 06:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks, I added the piece at the end on Jimmy Carter's recent press release (). As the most trusted American I can think of, I predict that President Carter's short, articulate statement will become a most influential document in this debate. (DMC Feb 2 2006); OK then, my mistake as pointed out in the history page, Pres. Carter's release was from 2004, thanks FM for catching that (DMC Feb 5 2006); not seen much recent coverage of this statment, perhaps my prediction of influence has proven unjustified:).
Bearing in mind that some religions/denominations accept evolution as viable but others don't... what do others think about adding a section/chart to this article that lists the stance different religions or denominations take on evolution? This seems like a good, relevant venue for such information, which is hard to find elsewhere.
-- Careax 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That will be difficult since in many religions there are disagreements with the religions and denominations. For example, orthdox jews run the gamut from YEC all the way to theistic evolution. Thats probably the most extreme example, but even among southern baptists there is a lot of variation. For christian denominations which generally have clear cut doctrines(even if the individuals in the denom don't follow all of them) might be easier though. JoshuaZ 18:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
According to www.washingtonpost.com,
I suggest the article be modified to make it clear that design itself (not motivations) was being so characterised. Eiler7 14:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about that. I am suggesting a change to this article to improve accuracy. How about the following? If there are no objections, I may make this change in a few days.
any 'direct' appeal to religion, although Leonard Krishtalka, an opponent of the movement, called intelligent design "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo". Eiler7 16:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Why the "when pressed" caveats in the first section? It looks a bit strange to the casual reader - like the subjects haven't bothered to think about the issue. CuteWombat 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
"when pressed" does not look very encyclopedic. There are no references to back up this point so should it be reworded? CuteWombat 23:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
How about just take it out - the sentences will run much better without the caveats. I can probably find a reference to back up the fact that most of the scientific community back evolution hence the lack of debate. Not sure where to get a reference for the pro creation lobby however. CuteWombat 22:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The False dichotomy section says "This automatically precludes discussions of origin beliefs other than creationism and of scientific theories other than the current understanding of the theory of evolution." So, what are these other theories and beliefs? Surely some of them are notable enough to be listed elsewhere, and wouldn't it make sense to link to that list here? 16:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
They are listed at origin beliefs. -- ScienceApologist 19:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Barely any theories are there. I was also thinking of things like Macroevolution and Irreducible complexity - maybe they aren't widely accepted and don't attempt to explain the origins of life on their own, but they are relevant at least as counter-theories. (And perhaps there are some other slightly-more-mainstream theories that aren't as accepted as evolution?) 07:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this article Creation-Evolution Controversy states the following:
"The main opposing sides are those who espouse religious origin beliefs (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology."
This paragraph implies that Creationists or IDers have no scientific evidence to support their claims, only religious, but that Evolutionists rely on "naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology."
Wikipedia has a NPOV policy, and that paragraph clearly violates the policy by inferring/implying that Evolutionists are scientific, but IDers are non-scientific. Along with that, Wikipedia has a Verifiability policy, and that paragraph isn't verifiable. It isn't true that Creationists/IDers rely only on or espouse "religious origin beliefs" instead of "scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology." The evidence of science is the same for both sides of this debate - what differs is only how each side interprets the evidence.
I plan to change the paragraph soon so it will be NPOV. If you have any concerns about me doing so, please add to this discussion. EChronicle 01:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
True, the paragraph doesn't mention the word "evidence", but saying that Creationists/IDers "espouse religious origin beliefs" and that Evolutionists "support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology" automatically infers/implies what I said above, that "Creationists or IDers have no scientific evidence to support their claims, only religious, but that Evolutionists rely on "naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology." That is definitely a POV statement.
Along with that, you stated "Science is more than simply a collection of observations and evidence." I agree that it is much more than "a collection of observations and evidence." Evolution, however, isn't even that! It's not observable (neither is ID), and there is no evidence to support evolution either.
You also said that "What is not NPOV [is] to claim that both creationism and science rely on the same evidence as you are planning to do. They do not." That's an intersting statement, in that it is untrue, and unverifiable. Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence—the same facts. We all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. As I said above, "what differs is only how each side interprets the evidence." EChronicle 22:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been watching this quietly, but I'm getting bored. It's pretty clear that EChronicle is engaged in POV-pushing and has no legitimate basis for that POV tag. ScienceApologist has been very patience, but this has gone on too long already. I've reverted the tag. Alienus 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Just because your faith is incompatable with the evidence doesn't invalidate it! -- EChronicle 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Echronicle. The second paragraph is POV.
The main opposing sides are those who espouse religious origin beliefs (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology.
This is implying that the party opposing Creationists use Science, unlike to Creationists. It probably was not written to mean that, but says that none the less. I would change it, but I cannot think right now of a way to word it so that it does not imply this. I will change it later, if no one has any objections. I doubt they will. Also, I wish the debate had not taken this creationist-evolutionist turn :(. GofG ||| Contribs 01:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
To use science you need to publish in peer review journals and analyse evidence impartially. Creationist do not do this, so they cannot claim to be using science. Invoking the supernatural is also not science. Jefffire 12:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Jeffire, you said that to use science you need to [#1] publish in peer review journals and [#2] analyse evidence impartially. Creationists do not do this, so they cannot claim to be using science.
To deal with #1, Creationists have extreme difficulty getting their articles published in peer-review journals because once it is known that they are creationists, their articles are usually rejected (no matter how neutral the content). But, since this is not always the case, there are peer-reviewed books and articles by Creationists.
You stated in #2 that [you need to] analyse evidence impartially. I agree with you - and Evolutionists certainly don't analyze evidence impartially!
You also said that Invoking the supernatural is also not science. Says who?!!! Evolutionists start with the presupposition that there's "no God" and then work their way from there. That's not science! You have to leave open all the possiblities, no matter where the evidence takes you!
If you want to continue to debate Evolution vs. Creation/ID, we're going to do it on the right page. For now, deal with my proposition for changing POV paragraph two of the article. Thanks, -- EChronicle 18:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm giving all of you 24 hours to make a solid argument against my proposed change to paragraph two of the article. So if you have any reasonable objections to my proposal, please say what they are. If not, I'm changing paragraph two of the article to read as follows:
The main opposing sides are those who acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts of the universe's origin. (such as Evolutionists)
Thanks, -- EChronicle 18:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for not responding sooner, but I didn't have access to a computer for the last couple days. First of all, the POV tag is going to have to stay on the main page, since the article's neutrality is debated. Removing it while this discussion is going on is vandalism and will be dealt with as such. Number two, I agree that edits are determined by concensus, but I gave a 24 hour notice because this discussion was going nowhere. The term 'evolutionist' is true and is exactly what many scientists are. (Also, those who repeatedly say that evolution is a fact are Evolutionists)
The words 'acknowledge an Intelligent Designer' does not imply that there is an intelligent designer. All it says is that some acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin, which is true and verifiable. This is not a POV paragraph. Also note that your statement about you being a competent scientist... etc has no place here on Wikipedia. You do not have the right to deem yourself competent (thus implying that Creationists are not competent). -- EChronicle 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I am withdrawing from editing this article. For one thing, the article needs more NPOV work than I could possibly do even if there were no other editors to discuss things with. More importantly, the appearance would be too strong that I am arguing the case (or pushing the POV) of creationists (which I am not) instead of the case of Wikipedia NPOV policy (which I am). Please note that my personal beliefs have little to do with the "creationists" described here - I would typecast them as liars and swindlers.
Please deal fairly with the problems I have mentioned. Editors should be interested in building an encyclopedia, not in re-enacting in Wikipedia a battle being fought outside of it. It would be good to see the many infractions of WP:NPOV and its corollaries addressed. Perhaps I'll be back to see if I can help reach a consensus regarding the points I've already raised. AvB ÷ talk 18:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
We have a situation. On the one hand, Avb has added spurious templates and won't stick around to discuss them. On the other, he's started an edit war to keep those templates in. This is vandalism. Alienus 19:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Thanks to your participation on Abortion, I know exactly what you are. Regardless, you can either let the tags get removed or stick around and offer a reasonable explanation for why you inserted them and what it would take to get you to agree to their removal. You already chose to leave, so the tags go with you. Alienus 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
My previous edit concerned the first paragraph that had some real problems. I'm now reading the rest of the article for the first time. The few additional paragraphs I've read so far are in themselves sufficient reason for me to add the {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} tag. Secondly, I haven't checked why another user keeps adding the POV tag but if it hadn't been there, I would have added it myself. Please leave it in place. AvB ÷ talk 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The introduction states The controversy is not occurring within the scientific community or academia, whose members overwhelmingly tend to oppose creationism. This seems contradicted by the Common venues for debate section which states that Conflict occurs mostly in the public arena, as creationists have been unwilling or unable to publish their ideas through academic channels or in scientific journals. Both statements pretend to explain why the controversy is not discussed in academia but in the public arena. Is only one of them true? Are both true? Are both untrue? Is one of them intended as an explanation and the other as a qualification of scientists and indirectly of creationists? Does this article deserve the {{Contradict}} tag? AvB ÷ talk 18:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
AvB ÷ talk 11:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to explain.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/733_ohio_scientists39_intellige_10_15_2002.asp - ohio scientists. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm Gallup polls Presumably it would be good to chase down the 1987 Newsweek and the actual Gallup polls cited in the previous link. JoshuaZ 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Status quo regarding my Creationists, scientists, and good vs evil edit:
The net result so far is a slight improvement of the article in that one assertion is now sourced.
I'm starting a Wikibreak. I feel a Wikiburnout coming on. I'll be back to check on progress and to answer reasonable messages, if any, regarding item #3 of my original edit. AvB ÷ talk 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for spelling out why you have a hard time reconciling both. This goes directly to the heart of the problem. But it is complicated and I will have to go into considerable more detail than I have already done. There are many aspects to my edit of e.g. #3, although it took me mere seconds to do it. I will try to cut the process down to size for you today or tomorrow. AvB ÷ talk 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You ask how I "know" these things. Well, I don't. Like many other edits this started out as assumptions based on personal knowledge and experience ( WP:BOLD). I expected to be asked to provide sources, which would not have been difficult. In sourcing the statement, its language would have changed from "it is the view of" to "according to xxx, creationists view" (simple facts I have stated time and again, but failed to include in my edit. Life's funny).
I'll rephrase what you are saying so that you can tell me if I've missed something.
You are questioning the basis of my assertion that creationists believe they are fighting the good fight, with God on their side, and "evolutionists" nothing more than Devil's brood. In order to prove my assertion wrong, you mention two properties of creationists that can be assessed objectively: (1) what they say and (2) what they do. The upshot being that we cannot know what people believe, but we can know that they are lying when their acts belie their words. They are known to massively engage in actions denounced in the very Bible they say they see as inerrant. You cannot reconcile their behavior with their claimed beliefs. Therefore they must be lying. Ergo it is not their view that God is on their side. They cannot possibly believe that they are fighting the good fight etc. It boils down to the conviction that creationists can't be Christians (who, after all, like most religious groups, believe their God is on their side).
Now this is a common viewpoint and I certainly respect it as quite reasonable. I do not doubt that you believe it represents the facts. In fact I view this type of behavior as casting grave doubts on the sincerity of their claims (and this has been my considered opinion in these and similar cases for almost four decades, most recently experienced right here on Wikipedia. This person is on the verge of being booted off WP for a year even as we speak, and quite rightly so).
Having said that, I think your viewpoint is hard to prove and just as hard to disprove. I believe this is oversimplifying reality. reading it has not made me change my view, which is slightly different (and also hard to prove or disprove). Some aspects that play a role here: We cannot prove all creationists lie. We cannot prove that those who do, are lying all of the time. We are only aware of a small part of their lives, missing out on nearly everything they do and say. This falls out of the equation. But less so for me. I have sufficient inside information to know that many of them truly believe they are doing the will of God in their fight against "evolutionism" and other perceived evils. The harder the stance, the bigger the lies, the stronger the mandate they feel they have. I think that it is not only perfectly possible for self-proclaimed creationists to believe God is on their side - it's almost a sine qua non. Without a heavenly blessing they know their actions are deplorable.
I hope you can also respect my view. Even though I am not quite as sure about it as you seem to be about yours. I suggest you and I would do best not to claim absolute truth for our viewpoints - i.e. how you see the claimed faith of these creationists and how I see it.
Now what I'm describing here is original research. Just like the view you have described. If one of them is acceptable in the article, so is the other. And if we include both, of course the evolutionist view described in the article should include what you are saying about the lies and the doubts and your conviction that they do not really believe. Just like the unfriendly things they have to say about the opposition belong in the article. One POV should, however, not declare its beliefs as the standard truth for all humanity and try to use it to keep another party's claim out of the encyclopedia.
If this were the way to go, and if this were still a discussion about the various versions of #3, we would have reached a stalemate now, to be decided by policy and/or reaching a consensus. Ready for yet another episode of struggle for life and survival of the fittest, over time shifting the article from one POV to another and then back again. As it seems to have happened to this article.
ENTER the new and shining interpretation of the old and dusty
WP:NPOV according to Saint Jimbo.
We're saved. We do not have to re-enact the battle here at Wikipedia. We only have to report what's out there.
(to be continued... ) AvB ÷ talk 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
First a reminder of what this dispute is about: I have required a citation underpinning who (...) dispute creationism as an important battle between truth and falsehood. The citation has not been provided. When I added the {{ Fact}} tag, it was removed. This does not change my opinion that this part of the sentence must be removed as original research. The only person who has discussed this specific dispute with me so far is Guettarda. I'm now continuing this discussion.
I've discovered you are an admin so I feel I do not have to explain all aspects of NPOV to you. I'll just touch briefly on the very heart of WP:NPOV, its basis. And we're talking basic NPOV here. The new and shiny interpretation of NPOV happens to be the revival of something very old. Please listen to an explanation from Larry Sanger's 2001 NPOV draft:
As you can see, Wikipedia articles can state an opinion for a fact by attributing it. (Please also note that, in this context, "believe" has the same meaning as "view".) Whether or not an editor believes what is reported does not make a difference. Sanger's example is a nice one. At the very core of NPOV we find an explanation that tells us we cannot publish our opinion on what people say about themselves. All we have to do is report what they say. Granted, the current WP:NPOV has dropped the "God exists" example, but its replacement is:
What exactly can be verified: That people say they believe something. And still we take their word for it and report it as a fact.
I trust you as an admin will not be arguing that something as fundamental as the core principle of WP:NPOV can be trumped by consensus on an article talk page. Applying this core explanation of WP:NPOV to the disputed sentence:
IF you report from a survey or other source that all people who dispute creationism view this as a battle of truth (people that are speaking the truth) against untruthfulness (creationists who are lying) AND you attribute that as an opinion THEN the statement can be left in place.
As you can see, I am expanding the dispute. Even if the required citation is provided, the disputed text still has to be rephrased, attributing it to those who hold the viewpoint instead of stating for a fact that opponents of creationism speak the truth and that vocal creationists lie. For now, in anticipation of the required citation, I will edit the sentence to read:
I propose we give it another week. Providing a citation should be easy if this characterizes the dispute according to many creationism opponents. I should add that I could not find anything like it when I tried. AvB ÷ talk 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys...
Whoever keeps removing the POV template from the article page needs to stop doing that. The neutrality of this article is disputed, and the tag says exactly that. Removing the POV tag is vandalism, and will be dealt with as such.
Thanks, EChronicle 21:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I too will remove this tag if I notice it. The evidence I see overwhelmingly shows that this article has managed to negotiate a controversial topic with admirable interaction and compromise from editors who fall on both sides of the debate, as well as a few who do not fall on either side or are integrative in their perspective... Kenosis 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I too agree the article does not need a POV tag, EChronicle, please demonstrate there is indeed a violation of WP:NPOV before adding the tag. Mikker ... 13:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a general consensus that this article doesn't need the POV tag. I disagree, but I'm not going to do anything more about the tag for now. But, I do have some consensus that the second paragraph of the article is POV, and would appreciate your comments on my above proposal. Also I'd appreciate if you'd stop bickering over the term "evolutionist". That causes a whole lot of discussion about basically nothing. -- EChronicle
That tag certainly needs to be their. In fact, as of now, I think it's fairly clear that this article has not maintained it's nuetrality. Though the Christian opinions are presented, the manner in which they are is made to seem ignorant and naive in most of the cases. However, most of the intelligent arguments of the Church seem to be entirely excluded. As well, there is included a fair bit of evidence against Creationism, and for Darwinism. Yet there is basically no solid evidence presented for the religious point of view. From my individual studies in theology, archaeology, paleontology, and anthropology, I can easily confirm that the evidence exists, and in large quantities. As well, if it didn't, the controversy wouldn't have lasted over a century. I will attempt to make a contribution to this article, when and if I get the time. In the mean-time, I think it would be beneficial to this article if someone else would take the initiative to contribute to this article's nutarality. (unsigned by 69.158.167.86)
To All:
This is just a suggestion... The discussion "POV Second Paragraph" has probably gotten to a point where we need to start with a new fresh discussion. Could we move that discussion to the archives and let's give it another go-round, (and not have so much debate as far as evolution vs. creationist/ID)?
Again, it was only a suggestion, and if its not a good idea, it doesn't need to be done.
Thanks, -- EChronicle 15:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
To let you all know, I am IP 69.158.167.86. Well, if you're interested in the evidence, my discussion for it will be in the creationism discussion, as it's a pain to post it more than one place. Thanks. =D -- Waenishikusu 21:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful about our characterizations. Here's how I would do it: The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs (particularly to a plain reading of the Bible) and criticize scientific descriptions of origins from this perspective, and those who have a prior commitment to a naturalistic scientific method who either contextualize or reject religious origin beliefs in the light of scientific findings. --> "plain reading" is better than literal reading as many creationists insist they don't believe in literalism. "Criticize" is more appropriate a descriptor than "judge" because it carries a more negative connotation. "Rational" is a superfluous and argumentative adjective. Assuming that religious opposition to creationism relies on modification of religious belief is actually a creationist/atheist POV. "Contextualize" is more appropriate than "modify". -- ScienceApologist 13:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions that Creationists claim evolution is a religion. This depends on your definition of religion. Most people would not define evolution as a religion. Evolution is a belief system though because it starts off with an assumed presupposition as does Creationism. Creationists presuppose that God exists and the Bible is 100% true.(at least all that I've ever met) Evolutionists presuppose that if God exists (a huge if in the Theory of Evolution) he is not the God outlined in the Bible and that evolution happened somehow. Very few people realize they have presuppositions. These presuppositions can rarely be 'proven'. Science can not help because science can not prove anything. Even the Laws of Newton and the Laws of Thermodynamics need just one exception to disprove them. The Theory of Creation and The Theory of Evolution are both belief systems and what your presuppositions are determines what you will believe.
Even as a creationist, I have to agree.-- Waenishikusu 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it logically invalid to classify evolution as a belief system? Science is testable and observable. Neither creation nor evolution can be tested or observed. No one was at the beginning of time so we can not know what happened. We can study the evidence today but once again presuppositions will determine how this evidence is interpreted. I don't want to make this really long by giving a long and complicated example of presuppositions affecting science but I can tell you where I receive most of my information from and will leave it up to you to determine whether to visit this website: www.answersingenesis.org. Alisyd 17:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Not because of issues with presuppositions, but because the evidence was overwhelmingly against it. --> Explain that statement, por favor. -- EChronicle 19:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I know this is not the place for this debate... If you could answer my question, that would be helpful. I asked you to clarify your statement. Did you meant that the evidence was overwehelmingly against the whole bible? Since when did evolution win? That is why there is so much debate concerning Evolution v. Creationism. Evolution clearly does not have its facts down... there are big gaps in the fossil record... the mathematical improbability of it happening points away from evolution... and I could name numerous other examples from Biology, BioChemistry, Geology, etc, etc, etc. Evolution clearly hasn't won, and most likely about 20 years from now, people will be amazed that anyone thought macro-evolution actually happened. Again - could you please answer my question - that is, to clarify what you meant by your statement? Were you saying that the evidence was overwhelmingly against the Bible? -- EChronicle 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Look - I'm including the following analogy/illustration from Darwin's Black Box p. 192 by M. Behe that shows just how "settled" evolution is among scientists:
Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with magnifying glasses for any clue to the identity of the perpetrator. In the middle of the room, next to the body, stands a large, gray elephant. The detectives carefully avoid bumping nito the pachyderm's legs as they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives get frustrated with their lack of progress but resolutely press on, loking even more closely at the flor. You see, textbooks say detectives must "get their man," so they never consider elephants.
There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying to explain the development of life. The elephant is labeled "intelligent design." to a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed...
-- EChronicle 17:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Creation and Evolution both attempt to explain how we came into existence. Both have certain assumptions that can not be proven. Creation assumes that God created everything. If we are refering to the Biblical creation account, then this is assumed to be true even though there is no proof to back it up. Evolution assumes that either God doesn't exist or if he does he is not the God of the Bible. Evolution doesn't require God or any other supreme being. These are the preset beliefs and people either believe in them or they don't. These assumptions or presuppositions form the basis of these theories. None of them can be proven. Evidence can be made for or against but even then it requires that one trust the evidence and the person reporting the evidence. So then, it all comes down to what do you believe? or to who can argue their position better? I do not know if I am 100% correct on the evolutionary presuppositions but this is what I have come to understand from what I have heard evolutionists say. By the way, the majority opinion is not always right as has been evidenced by the geocentric universe and flat earth. But then again, it depends on what and who you believe. 209.145.244.126 18:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
In order to hold a logical argument, you must believe that the laws of logic are going to work. Agreed, that they do but it is a presupposition which one must believe before partaking in a logical argument. Alisyd 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You still have to believe that the correlations and models will work. Agreed, if you don't think that, there is no point in studying the universe, but you have to believe something and that will determine what you think. As for Tiktaalik, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Coelacanth in that same fossil strata layer? It has been found alive today and is not millions of years extinct. 209.145.244.126 15:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You still have to believe that the scientific method will work. Accuracy is also determined by your faith in your instrument's accuracy and your mind's capacity for interpreting that information and the correctness of the model. There are so many variables which one must believe every day. These assumptions or presuppositions make up how you will react to a given situation. I have a presupposition that the Bible is 100% truth. This presupposition determines how I interpret facts about the past (fossil record, origin of life, great flood(if you believe there was one)) and then how my interpretations of facts influence my thinking about what happened in the past. That's how presuppositions work and everyone has them. Alisyd 15:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm back.
A number of users have found the second paragraph of the article unsatisfactory for a couple of different reasons. The point of this one discussion (Second Paragraph) is not to discuss Creation vs. Evolution (I am fully willing to do that on the Creationism page, as Waenishikusu said.)
We have three proposals on hand: from Science_Apologist, Ming the Merciless, and me (EChronicle).
Ming the Merciless' proposal was the following: The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs (particularly to a literal reading of the Bible) and judge scientific accounts of the universe from this perspective, and those who have a prior commitment to rational and naturalistic scientific method and either modify or reject religious belief in the light of scientific findings. Within these camps are quite broad spectrums of opinion. --> First of all, that's just way too complicated. Second of all, leave out religion! Religion is not the point of this article, as this article shows. ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html)
Science_Apologist's proposal was: The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs (particularly to a plain reading of the Bible) and criticize scientific descriptions of origins from this perspective, and those who have a prior commitment to a naturalistic scientific method who either contextualize or reject religious origin beliefs in the light of scientific findings. --> I wouldn't go with that because it makes it sound like creationists criticize scientific descriptions, and this proposal again mentions religion!
My proposal is: The main opposing sides are those who acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts of the universe's origin (such as Evolutionists). --> If you have a problem with being called "Evolutionists", then we will take out "such as Evolutionists" and "such as Creationists".
I'd appreciate your comments and suggestions, EChronicle 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The article's second paragraph as written is easy to understand. Very appropriate for an introduction to this article. I think all of the replacement 2nd paragraphs are less clear and too wordy for an introduction. FloNight talk 16:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
(culled from above)
There are a number of problems with this. First of all Intelligent designer is a neologism adopted by the Intelligent design movement and as such is too narrow a designation for the "big tent" creationists. "Evolutionists" should not be used as a term as can be read in the article, though there are no sources I know of where creationists object to being called "creationists". (Note that there are intelligent design advocates who claim they aren't promoting creationism, but this is a separate issue). So while it is appropriate to use creationist it is inappropriate to use evolutionist. -- ScienceApologist 17:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If you find the second paragraph inaccurate, modify the third paragraph a little bit and eliminate the second paragraph. Otherwise it seems redundant. FloNight talk 21:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea, because the third paragraph complements the second paragraph (But right now, both of those need to be tweaked as neither are verifiable or npov). Also, FloNight - maybe you should try to get consensus before removing the second paragraph? -- EChronicle 17:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this article states the following:
The main opposing sides are those who espouse religious origin beliefs (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology.
That's an unverifiable and pov paragraph (as I've been saying all along), but I'm going to put a new twist on the "why". Why is it unverifiable? Because Secular Humanism (of which Evolution is the basis) is religious - it is a religion and a belief system - and this article infers/implies that only Creationists are "religious", thus giving Evolutionists more scientific crediblity. You might say you've heard that argument before etc, but guess what? The Humanist Manifesto, signed by many leading Evolutionists, admits it. They knew themselves they were espousing an anti-God religion/belief system.
I've looked at the talk.origins page on my "claim", but the whole of their "rebuttal" is misleading/erroneous/false.
-- EChronicle 15:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. What they do not realize is their belief system and evolution's belief system are incompatible. The Christian faith and the evolutionary faith are incompatible because then death and suffering enter before man and then there is no need for Jesus Christ. I refered to evolution as a belief because it requires presuppositions as does Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or Bhuddism or any other religion you can think of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisyd ( talk • contribs)
It has been said that the only presupposition of science is that the information we recieve from our senses is roughly accurate. Hardly a religion. Jefffire 15:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
... for recently improving the article in many places and also making it stronger by adding many citations. I also like your sourcing, copyediting and re-inserting of information I added (and saw reverted) a month ago - something I had meant to do myself but life happened...
However, I seem to detect a problem with one of the citations [Johnson, Phillip E. 1990. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. First Things (Oct.), 15-22. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm] (the one in support of my original edit, of all things). It doesn't cite a creationist calling their own plight a battle between good and evil: Johnson attributed the "good and evil" dichotomy to someone else, "William Provine, a leading historian of Darwinism," who blamed the scientific establishment itself for misleading the public about the absolute incompatibility of contemporary Darwinism with any belief in God, designing forces, or absolute standards of good and evil. Johnson goes on to write: According to Provine, "These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest."' (Also, I'm not sure that Johnson is a creationist in the sense of "biblical fundamentalist".)
Am I reading this correctly? AvB ÷ talk 11:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution" Douglas H. Erwin, Evolution & Development,Volume 2 Page 78 - March\April 2000,doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x,Volume 2 Issue 2 This seems to militate against the description in the article. Dan Watts 12:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article has problems - notably "Biologists argue that "macroevolution", "microevolution" and kind are non-scientific, inherently imprecise terms coined by creationists" - "kinds" maybe, but not the other two.
To begin with, despite the title of the paper, Erwin is asking a question, not making a statement. He begins by saying "Since all evolutionary change involves intraspecific modification and speciation, in a trivial sense macroevolution could be reduced to microevolution". The major idea he develops is one of scale. He talks about the fact that species with planktonic larvae are less prone to extinction than those with non-planktonic larvae - as a result, certain clades are less prone to extinction than other clades. Thus, there are macro patterns in evolution which cannot really be studied from a microevolutionary standpoint. You can't sum up microevolutionary change to explain why one whole clade is more successful than another clade, despite the fact that you can explain the differences within each lineage in microevolutionary terms.
In a real sense, this is like saying that you can't explain ecological phenomena, say, predator-prey dynamics, in molecular terms, despite the fact that you can explan what is going on in every individual in molecular terms. As a community ecologist, Erwin's ideas make a lot of sense. That said, these arguments don't invalidate the statement that macroevolution is microevolution writ large. Mechanistically, they are adequate, but they fail to explain the broader patterns in evolution, so yes, you can say that there is more to macroevolution than repeat rounds of microevolution. Guettarda 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is missing two very important topics:
These two creationist points are completely lacking in the article right now.
-- ScienceApologist 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, JoshuaZ. I would appreciate if you actually did some research before editing in such a POV & UnVerifiable way. I changed the last sentence of the paragraph "Terms of the controversy" (concerning the origin of life) from this:
For example, while almost all biologists consider it a matter of fact that life was formed through natural means, evolutionary theory in and of itself does not necessarily include abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter.
to this:
The origin of life is, however, fundamental to Evolutionary Biology, because it addresses where life came from.
And I had added a citation at the references section (except I don't know how to get the article to point to the cite - also, I couldn't get the cite to go directly under the "references" section, it only would go under "published books and other resources"), that pointed to evolution.berkeley.edu, that plainly contradicted your so called "the origin of life does not matter to evolution" belief.
The berkely article stated that the origin of life is of "special interest" to evolution and is "fundamental". Please explain how changing the article (and linking to a verifiable source) is pov-pushing?
-- EChronicle 13:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the majority is not always in the right, but neither is the minority. It is impossible to write anything without being biased unless you honestly don't care about the subject in which case you won't write anything no it unless you must. The origins of life is outside the scope of evolution but evolution still needs to base its assumption upon where we came from. Evolution claims that we have come through a long, slow process to where we are now starting from simple one-celled bacteria which had to get here somehow. If God is taken out of the picture then we had to come from non-living matter. In fact, if God is taken out of the picture, we can't be sure we evolved in the right way or even what right means in that context. We are an accident according to evolutionary theory. Even if God did create, he can't be the perfect omnipotent God of the Bible because the God that creates and lets evolution do the rest would be a liar if he was the God of the Bible and he would not be the close personal God He professes to be, but some distant holy being who has absolutely no concern for his creation, just letting them kill off each other for hundreds of billions of years. Does that sound like a loving God? Evolution has to make some assumptions either way as does Creationism or whatever else you believe. 209.145.244.126 16:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
EChronicle, you're making a lot of the page you link to, but if you check the index it doesn't feature as a main part of "Evolution 101": as far as I can see, you've got to go through 1. Introduction and nine pages of 2. The history of life: before you find a link to it as "Take a sidetrip". It can also be reached from the home page in a section at the foot headed "HIghlights". You also seem to be misinterpreting the text. As the page says, "within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from." That's not the same as saying this "special interest" is "fundamental to Evolutionary Biology", except in the widest sense that without life there would be no discussion. The sentence you attribute to JoshuaZ is accurate and NPOV ... dave souza, talk 17:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Dave, to deal with your first point, there's two identical pages on their website that are called "From soup to cells - the origin fo life". The one I pointed to is: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_01, which is listed under "Evolution 101", and the other one is http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01 , which is listed as a side-trip. To deal with your next point, I'm not misinterpreting the text. This is what the Berkely page states:
However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.
And here is what I wrote:
The origin of life is, however, fundamental to Evolutionary Biology, because it addresses where life came from.
The Berkely text is saying that the origin of life is of special interest to EB because it is a fundamental question. That's what I wrote in my quote, except I left out the "special interest" part.
I'm not attributing the following sentence to JoshuaZ (For example, while almost all biologists consider it a matter of fact that life was formed through natural means, evolutionary theory in and of itself does not necessarily include abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter.)- what I'm saying is that the sentence is POV and non-verifiable (the berkely article shows that) , and what I changed it to is NPOV and Verifiable.
What I've written to you, dave, also addresses the remarks made by Jefffire....
As far as what Guetterda wrote, if the production of energy by the sun is fundamental to life, then evolution's got to figure out how the sun was able to start producing energy! I agree with him in that Evolution can not explain the origin of life nor can any materialistic/naturalistic processes. But, even though it cannot, it must! Also, if Evolution can answer for it all, then fine. But if Evolution can not answer for it all, and you have to attribute the origin of life to God, then just attribute the whole thing to God! Because we have evidence that God does exist, that Jesus did live on this earth for a time and is who he said he is (the creator), and we have evidence that the bible is true and factual (any alleged "contradictions" have been "solved" time and time again) - we know that the God of the Bible created life, and he did it in six days. He did not use evolution.
209.145.244.126, the loving God/Hell scenario "problem" just doesn't hold up. I don't have enough time to go through that, so why don't you try a google search or check out "Case for a Creator" at your local library (By Lee Strobel)??? -- EChronicle 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah dear, Ec, there's no problem with the Berkeley quote in its context. Although it seems superfluous to me, it fits well in the original sentence:
But for some reason you seem to want to dispense with the second part of the sentence. By cherry picking words out of context to construct your own argument that "The origin of life is... fundamental to Evolutionary Biology", you then apparently dispute the operation of evolution theory without regard to the origin of life. That's a violation of WP:NOR#What is excluded? in introducing an analysis or synthesis to build a particular case you favor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.
You seem to be putting forward a standard creationist claim, suitable citations responding to this are at Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism: section iii: abiogenesis "The first thing that needs to be stressed about abiogenesis is that it is separable from evolutionary theory. One can consistently accept every tenet of evolution yet believe that the very first organisms from which contemporary life evolved were created. One can likewise consistently believe that life arises spontaneously from nonlife, yet reject the notion that life evolves." and TalkOrigins "The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution." Unsurprisingly, the Berkeley teaching resource in no way disputes these points. ... dave souza, talk 14:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm excited for this section, boys and girls! A lot of ins, a lot of outs. I've begun collecting Wikilinks. Please add salient articles you know of for this section below.
-- ScienceApologist 06:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The assertation that evolution is supported by astrophysics in included in the opening paragraph. No references are provided, nor are their examples given within the article itself. The only applicable instance in which physics could be used to justify the field of biology is in verifying the age of the universe. This point is not necessarily valid in all creation-evolution debates, as not all creationists hold with the young earth theory ( Talk.Origins). Unless a valid argument is presented for justifying this inclusion, it needs to be omitted. -- Coldbourne 14:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is not just about evolutionary theory, but about eveery facet of science which is neccacery to it, such as an old Earth. Jefffire 17:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Gracias. -- Coldbourne 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to sort out the article, but the article should make mention Judaism takes no part in the Christians and friends crusade against science. The Rabbinical Council of America has issued a letter on Judaism say:
December 22nd 2005
21 Kislev 5766
In light of the ongoing public controversy about Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design, the RCA notes that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.
There are authentic, respected voices in the Jewish community that take a literalist position with regard to these issues; at the same time, Judaism has a history of diverse approaches to the understanding of the biblical account of creation. As Rabbi Joseph Hertz wrote, "While the fact of creation has to this day remained the first of the articles of the Jewish creed, there is no uniform and binding belief as to the manner of creation, i.e. as to the process whereby the universe came into existence. The manner of the Divine creative activity is presented in varying forms and under differing metaphors by Prophet, Psalmist and Sage; by the Rabbis in Talmudic times, as well as by our medieval Jewish thinkers." Some refer to the Midrash (Koheleth Rabbah 3:13) which speaks of God "developing and destroying many worlds" before our current epoch. Others explain that the word "yom" in Biblical Hebrew, usually translated as "day," can also refer to an undefined period of time, as in Isaiah 11:10-11. Maimonides stated that "what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses" (Guide to the Perplexed II:29), and recent Rabbinic leaders who have discussed the topic of creation, such as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, saw no difficulty in explaining Genesis as a theological text rather than a scientific account.
Judaism affirms the idea that God is the Creator of the Universe and the Being responsible for the presence of human beings in this world.
Nonetheless, there have long been different schools of thought within Judaism regarding the extent of divine intervention in natural processes. One respected view was expressed by Maimonides who wrote that "we should endeavor to integrate the Torah with rational thought, affirming that events take place in accordance with the natural order wherever possible.? (Letter to the Jews of Yemen) All schools concur that God is the ultimate cause and that humanity was an intended end result of Creation.
For us, these fundamental beliefs do not rest on the purported weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory, and cannot be undermined by the elimination of gaps in scientific knowledge.
Judaism has always preferred to see science and Torah as two aspects of the "Mind of God" (to borrow Stephen Hawking's phrase) that are ultimately unitary in the reality given to us by the Creator. As the Zohar says (Genesis 134a): "istakel be-'oraita u-vara 'alma," God looked into the Torah and used it as His blueprint for creating the Universe. [5]
(Yes, the RCA's website isn't so great) eeemess 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, many other jewish groups have massive problems (for example the Lubavitchers and most other chassidic groups). JoshuaZ 13:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago,
"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
Notice "creationism derived from" as part of the statement under contention. Whatever rabbis are saying now (and note that some Orthodox rabbis don't accept evolution), it can't be argued that creationism isn't heavily influenced by Genesis. Ladlergo 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Since there exists fundamentalist Jews who accept creationism, it is inappropriate to remove the reference to fundamentalist Judaism as a basis for certain creationist beliefs. Please refrain from doing so. Also the added paragraph does not belong here. Put it in Jewish creationism. Thanks, -- ScienceApologist 13:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me quote from the fundamentalism article. Most Jewish denominations believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) cannot be understood literally or alone, but rather needs to be read in conjunction with additional material known as the oral law; this material is contained in the Mishnah, Talmud, Gmara and Midrash. While the Tanakh is not read in a literal fashion, Orthodox Judaism does view the text itself as divine, infallible, and transmitted essentially without change, and places great import in the specific words and letters of the Torah. As well, some adherents of Orthodox Judaism, especially Haredi Judaism, see the Mishnah, Talmud and Midrash as divine and infallible in content, if not in specific wording. Hasidic Jews frequently ascribe infallibility to their Rebbe's interpretation of the traditional sources of truth. On the other hand the Karaites according to the "are a Jewish sect which does not recognize the authority of the post-Biblical tradition incorporated in the Talmud and in the latter Rabbinic works."- You see it even says so in the fundamentalism. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
We aren't saying that the majority of Jews are creationists in this article, only that there are creationist thoughts which derive from Judaism. Claiming these advocates are non-notable is beside the point. -- ScienceApologist 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What nonsense. Let me quote myself with the typos:
I think I made myself very clear. There are such people. HOWEVER, they are not fundementalist by defination. The statement says primarily the forms of creationism derived from fundamentalist ... You can not include Judaism in such a statement. If you wish you can state there are some unfundamentalistic Jews who have such views. But you can not say its the view of fundamental Judaism. Please stop censoring Jewish fundamental views. Please self-revert yourself. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 19:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This is still essentially the view that YECist Jews aren't fundementalist because you don't believe they are. YECist Jews simply place a greater weight on the Old Testament than other texts. Thus a "fundementalist Jew" could be YEC. Jefffire 20:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That is original research. Sure all fundemental Jews are anti-evolution as in anti the Richard Dawkins school of evolution. Not evolution it self. Most fundemental Jews (as I have sourced above and they were actually Jews) understand the universe of existing before the creation of the heavens and the earth. Likewise, with water. And do not mistranslate "Yom Ehad" as first day as most christian creationist do. Rather they translate it as one day. You can see in the sources I brought above of actual Jews (not a Gentile like the AiG article). The Ramban commentates on "Yom Ehad" and explains why it doesn't say "Yom Rishon" (first day) stating that a day wasn't defined yet and this is was when it was. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 23:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The article says fundamentalist or religiously conservative groups. EMS seems to think that there are no religiously conservative groups that use this interpretation which are also Jewish. This is clearly false. Upon unprotection, Jewish needs to go back in as duly referenced. -- ScienceApologist 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
EMS - can you explain what you mean by the "Richard Dawkins' school of evolution"? Do you mean that Judaism rejects gene-centred evolution in favour of group selection? Isn't that just neo-Nazi propaganda? Guettarda 05:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll quote this from Rashi - an commentator that many Haredi rabbis endorse: Rabbis stated (Letters of Rabbi Akiva, second letter; Genesis Rabbah 1:6; Leviticus Rabbah 36:4): Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation. If you say that Scripture indicates the order of creation be astounded at yourself, for the water preceded, as it is written: (Genesis 1:2) “and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water,” and Scripture did not yet disclose when the creation of water took place! From this you learn that the water preceded the earth. Perforce, you must admit that Scripture did not teach us anything about the sequence of the earlier and the later acts of creation. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 09:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
On YEC and OEC. The Jewish understanding that sourced to say both dates are correct and show how. Jews reject them individually. They reject both schools. However, they have their own school of understanding. [20] ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 09:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This post claims chabad rabbis teaching in this way. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 10:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The sentence in question says that YECism come from "fundentalist or religously consevative" people. Even if you believe that YEC jews aren't fundementalist surely the term "religously conservative" still applies, making your point moot. After all, what were they all believing three hundred years ago? Jefffire 11:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
On the matter of Rabbis banning an advertisement which shows a evolution of an ape to a human. Rabbinical literature states humans were created with tails until the time of Noah people had webbed fingures, etc. None of these things can be found in apes. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Rashi commentary is the simple/literal understanding of the Torah and is highly criticized for it. The Maharal said you should first teach a child the real meaning of the Torah before the simple. He actually forbid teaching Rashi to children. Rashi's understanding would be the fundamental reading of the Torah. And what does Rashi say? He says the word "Bere'shit" is grammatically connected (it doesn't mean in the beginning rather in the beginning of $the_next_word) to the next word as we can see every other time "re'shit" is used in the Torah it is connected to the next word. He also says if the Torah wanted to teach the order of creation is would of used the word "bere'shona" which is the grammatical correct word. Rashi says If you say that Scripture indicates the order of creation be astounded at yourself, for the water preceded, as it is written: (Genesis 1:2) “and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water,” and Scripture did not yet disclose when the creation of water took place! From this you learn that the water preceded the earth. Perforce, you must admit that Scripture did not teach us anything about the sequence of the earlier and the later acts of creation. Literal understanding of Genesis is NOT using some inaccurate Christian translation! Literal understanding in Judaism is very different to Christianity and Islam. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The conflict centers primarily around the defensibility of creationism (primarily the forms of creationism derived from fundamentalist or religiously conservative Christian and Islamic accounts of origins) that holds the scientific explanations of origins to be antithetical to creation theology, and oftentimes, more specifically, Creation according to Genesis.
That is the part which seems to be causeing theological trouble. As you can see it lists "creation according to genesis" as a specific, but "creation theology" is given as the generic, which covers different interpratation using the other holy books. It seems to me that is whole arguement is down to misreading the intro. Jefffire 16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I support this reversion. This large paragraph doesn't belong in this article (regardless of the merits it may or may not have - perhaps it's something for the Haredi Jews article). The Creation-evolution controversy article clearly deals with subsets of these religions who qualify as creationists. The inserted text is about one religion's) subset who do not qualify as creationists. As such, the entire text needs to go. No need to invoke any policy at all (although several would apply).
However, this does not resolve the root problem: some editors dispute the existence of a notable subset of creationists amongst Haredi Jews. Since no citations have been provided, and the burden of proof is on those who want this infoprmation included in the article, I suggest {{fact}} tagging the reference to Haredi Jews. Outright removal does not seem helpful to the building of an encyclopedia. Ultimately it may be removed, together with the "Judaism/Jewish" reference, if no citations are provided in a month or so. AvB ÷ talk 09:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I think one of the allegations about evolution that creationists make is that given what we know about how evolution would work, if it were an accurate theory, there wasn't enough time for humans to evolve. Unless I'm misremembering, this is worth including, along with the scientific refutation
Several images overlap with text and need to be reformatted properly.-- ragesoss 05:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Which in particular? It may have something to do with the way the software talks to your browser. I'm not seeing any problems on the page. -- ScienceApologist 06:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks, I added the piece at the end on Jimmy Carter's recent press release (). As the most trusted American I can think of, I predict that President Carter's short, articulate statement will become a most influential document in this debate. (DMC Feb 2 2006); OK then, my mistake as pointed out in the history page, Pres. Carter's release was from 2004, thanks FM for catching that (DMC Feb 5 2006); not seen much recent coverage of this statment, perhaps my prediction of influence has proven unjustified:).
Bearing in mind that some religions/denominations accept evolution as viable but others don't... what do others think about adding a section/chart to this article that lists the stance different religions or denominations take on evolution? This seems like a good, relevant venue for such information, which is hard to find elsewhere.
-- Careax 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That will be difficult since in many religions there are disagreements with the religions and denominations. For example, orthdox jews run the gamut from YEC all the way to theistic evolution. Thats probably the most extreme example, but even among southern baptists there is a lot of variation. For christian denominations which generally have clear cut doctrines(even if the individuals in the denom don't follow all of them) might be easier though. JoshuaZ 18:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
According to www.washingtonpost.com,
I suggest the article be modified to make it clear that design itself (not motivations) was being so characterised. Eiler7 14:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about that. I am suggesting a change to this article to improve accuracy. How about the following? If there are no objections, I may make this change in a few days.
any 'direct' appeal to religion, although Leonard Krishtalka, an opponent of the movement, called intelligent design "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo". Eiler7 16:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Why the "when pressed" caveats in the first section? It looks a bit strange to the casual reader - like the subjects haven't bothered to think about the issue. CuteWombat 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
"when pressed" does not look very encyclopedic. There are no references to back up this point so should it be reworded? CuteWombat 23:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
How about just take it out - the sentences will run much better without the caveats. I can probably find a reference to back up the fact that most of the scientific community back evolution hence the lack of debate. Not sure where to get a reference for the pro creation lobby however. CuteWombat 22:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The False dichotomy section says "This automatically precludes discussions of origin beliefs other than creationism and of scientific theories other than the current understanding of the theory of evolution." So, what are these other theories and beliefs? Surely some of them are notable enough to be listed elsewhere, and wouldn't it make sense to link to that list here? 16:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
They are listed at origin beliefs. -- ScienceApologist 19:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Barely any theories are there. I was also thinking of things like Macroevolution and Irreducible complexity - maybe they aren't widely accepted and don't attempt to explain the origins of life on their own, but they are relevant at least as counter-theories. (And perhaps there are some other slightly-more-mainstream theories that aren't as accepted as evolution?) 07:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this article Creation-Evolution Controversy states the following:
"The main opposing sides are those who espouse religious origin beliefs (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology."
This paragraph implies that Creationists or IDers have no scientific evidence to support their claims, only religious, but that Evolutionists rely on "naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology."
Wikipedia has a NPOV policy, and that paragraph clearly violates the policy by inferring/implying that Evolutionists are scientific, but IDers are non-scientific. Along with that, Wikipedia has a Verifiability policy, and that paragraph isn't verifiable. It isn't true that Creationists/IDers rely only on or espouse "religious origin beliefs" instead of "scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology." The evidence of science is the same for both sides of this debate - what differs is only how each side interprets the evidence.
I plan to change the paragraph soon so it will be NPOV. If you have any concerns about me doing so, please add to this discussion. EChronicle 01:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
True, the paragraph doesn't mention the word "evidence", but saying that Creationists/IDers "espouse religious origin beliefs" and that Evolutionists "support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology" automatically infers/implies what I said above, that "Creationists or IDers have no scientific evidence to support their claims, only religious, but that Evolutionists rely on "naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology." That is definitely a POV statement.
Along with that, you stated "Science is more than simply a collection of observations and evidence." I agree that it is much more than "a collection of observations and evidence." Evolution, however, isn't even that! It's not observable (neither is ID), and there is no evidence to support evolution either.
You also said that "What is not NPOV [is] to claim that both creationism and science rely on the same evidence as you are planning to do. They do not." That's an intersting statement, in that it is untrue, and unverifiable. Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence—the same facts. We all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. As I said above, "what differs is only how each side interprets the evidence." EChronicle 22:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been watching this quietly, but I'm getting bored. It's pretty clear that EChronicle is engaged in POV-pushing and has no legitimate basis for that POV tag. ScienceApologist has been very patience, but this has gone on too long already. I've reverted the tag. Alienus 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Just because your faith is incompatable with the evidence doesn't invalidate it! -- EChronicle 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Echronicle. The second paragraph is POV.
The main opposing sides are those who espouse religious origin beliefs (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology.
This is implying that the party opposing Creationists use Science, unlike to Creationists. It probably was not written to mean that, but says that none the less. I would change it, but I cannot think right now of a way to word it so that it does not imply this. I will change it later, if no one has any objections. I doubt they will. Also, I wish the debate had not taken this creationist-evolutionist turn :(. GofG ||| Contribs 01:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
To use science you need to publish in peer review journals and analyse evidence impartially. Creationist do not do this, so they cannot claim to be using science. Invoking the supernatural is also not science. Jefffire 12:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Jeffire, you said that to use science you need to [#1] publish in peer review journals and [#2] analyse evidence impartially. Creationists do not do this, so they cannot claim to be using science.
To deal with #1, Creationists have extreme difficulty getting their articles published in peer-review journals because once it is known that they are creationists, their articles are usually rejected (no matter how neutral the content). But, since this is not always the case, there are peer-reviewed books and articles by Creationists.
You stated in #2 that [you need to] analyse evidence impartially. I agree with you - and Evolutionists certainly don't analyze evidence impartially!
You also said that Invoking the supernatural is also not science. Says who?!!! Evolutionists start with the presupposition that there's "no God" and then work their way from there. That's not science! You have to leave open all the possiblities, no matter where the evidence takes you!
If you want to continue to debate Evolution vs. Creation/ID, we're going to do it on the right page. For now, deal with my proposition for changing POV paragraph two of the article. Thanks, -- EChronicle 18:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm giving all of you 24 hours to make a solid argument against my proposed change to paragraph two of the article. So if you have any reasonable objections to my proposal, please say what they are. If not, I'm changing paragraph two of the article to read as follows:
The main opposing sides are those who acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts of the universe's origin. (such as Evolutionists)
Thanks, -- EChronicle 18:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for not responding sooner, but I didn't have access to a computer for the last couple days. First of all, the POV tag is going to have to stay on the main page, since the article's neutrality is debated. Removing it while this discussion is going on is vandalism and will be dealt with as such. Number two, I agree that edits are determined by concensus, but I gave a 24 hour notice because this discussion was going nowhere. The term 'evolutionist' is true and is exactly what many scientists are. (Also, those who repeatedly say that evolution is a fact are Evolutionists)
The words 'acknowledge an Intelligent Designer' does not imply that there is an intelligent designer. All it says is that some acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin, which is true and verifiable. This is not a POV paragraph. Also note that your statement about you being a competent scientist... etc has no place here on Wikipedia. You do not have the right to deem yourself competent (thus implying that Creationists are not competent). -- EChronicle 17:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I am withdrawing from editing this article. For one thing, the article needs more NPOV work than I could possibly do even if there were no other editors to discuss things with. More importantly, the appearance would be too strong that I am arguing the case (or pushing the POV) of creationists (which I am not) instead of the case of Wikipedia NPOV policy (which I am). Please note that my personal beliefs have little to do with the "creationists" described here - I would typecast them as liars and swindlers.
Please deal fairly with the problems I have mentioned. Editors should be interested in building an encyclopedia, not in re-enacting in Wikipedia a battle being fought outside of it. It would be good to see the many infractions of WP:NPOV and its corollaries addressed. Perhaps I'll be back to see if I can help reach a consensus regarding the points I've already raised. AvB ÷ talk 18:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
We have a situation. On the one hand, Avb has added spurious templates and won't stick around to discuss them. On the other, he's started an edit war to keep those templates in. This is vandalism. Alienus 19:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Thanks to your participation on Abortion, I know exactly what you are. Regardless, you can either let the tags get removed or stick around and offer a reasonable explanation for why you inserted them and what it would take to get you to agree to their removal. You already chose to leave, so the tags go with you. Alienus 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
My previous edit concerned the first paragraph that had some real problems. I'm now reading the rest of the article for the first time. The few additional paragraphs I've read so far are in themselves sufficient reason for me to add the {{unreferenced|date=August 2006}} tag. Secondly, I haven't checked why another user keeps adding the POV tag but if it hadn't been there, I would have added it myself. Please leave it in place. AvB ÷ talk 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The introduction states The controversy is not occurring within the scientific community or academia, whose members overwhelmingly tend to oppose creationism. This seems contradicted by the Common venues for debate section which states that Conflict occurs mostly in the public arena, as creationists have been unwilling or unable to publish their ideas through academic channels or in scientific journals. Both statements pretend to explain why the controversy is not discussed in academia but in the public arena. Is only one of them true? Are both true? Are both untrue? Is one of them intended as an explanation and the other as a qualification of scientists and indirectly of creationists? Does this article deserve the {{Contradict}} tag? AvB ÷ talk 18:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
AvB ÷ talk 11:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to explain.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/733_ohio_scientists39_intellige_10_15_2002.asp - ohio scientists. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm Gallup polls Presumably it would be good to chase down the 1987 Newsweek and the actual Gallup polls cited in the previous link. JoshuaZ 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Status quo regarding my Creationists, scientists, and good vs evil edit:
The net result so far is a slight improvement of the article in that one assertion is now sourced.
I'm starting a Wikibreak. I feel a Wikiburnout coming on. I'll be back to check on progress and to answer reasonable messages, if any, regarding item #3 of my original edit. AvB ÷ talk 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for spelling out why you have a hard time reconciling both. This goes directly to the heart of the problem. But it is complicated and I will have to go into considerable more detail than I have already done. There are many aspects to my edit of e.g. #3, although it took me mere seconds to do it. I will try to cut the process down to size for you today or tomorrow. AvB ÷ talk 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You ask how I "know" these things. Well, I don't. Like many other edits this started out as assumptions based on personal knowledge and experience ( WP:BOLD). I expected to be asked to provide sources, which would not have been difficult. In sourcing the statement, its language would have changed from "it is the view of" to "according to xxx, creationists view" (simple facts I have stated time and again, but failed to include in my edit. Life's funny).
I'll rephrase what you are saying so that you can tell me if I've missed something.
You are questioning the basis of my assertion that creationists believe they are fighting the good fight, with God on their side, and "evolutionists" nothing more than Devil's brood. In order to prove my assertion wrong, you mention two properties of creationists that can be assessed objectively: (1) what they say and (2) what they do. The upshot being that we cannot know what people believe, but we can know that they are lying when their acts belie their words. They are known to massively engage in actions denounced in the very Bible they say they see as inerrant. You cannot reconcile their behavior with their claimed beliefs. Therefore they must be lying. Ergo it is not their view that God is on their side. They cannot possibly believe that they are fighting the good fight etc. It boils down to the conviction that creationists can't be Christians (who, after all, like most religious groups, believe their God is on their side).
Now this is a common viewpoint and I certainly respect it as quite reasonable. I do not doubt that you believe it represents the facts. In fact I view this type of behavior as casting grave doubts on the sincerity of their claims (and this has been my considered opinion in these and similar cases for almost four decades, most recently experienced right here on Wikipedia. This person is on the verge of being booted off WP for a year even as we speak, and quite rightly so).
Having said that, I think your viewpoint is hard to prove and just as hard to disprove. I believe this is oversimplifying reality. reading it has not made me change my view, which is slightly different (and also hard to prove or disprove). Some aspects that play a role here: We cannot prove all creationists lie. We cannot prove that those who do, are lying all of the time. We are only aware of a small part of their lives, missing out on nearly everything they do and say. This falls out of the equation. But less so for me. I have sufficient inside information to know that many of them truly believe they are doing the will of God in their fight against "evolutionism" and other perceived evils. The harder the stance, the bigger the lies, the stronger the mandate they feel they have. I think that it is not only perfectly possible for self-proclaimed creationists to believe God is on their side - it's almost a sine qua non. Without a heavenly blessing they know their actions are deplorable.
I hope you can also respect my view. Even though I am not quite as sure about it as you seem to be about yours. I suggest you and I would do best not to claim absolute truth for our viewpoints - i.e. how you see the claimed faith of these creationists and how I see it.
Now what I'm describing here is original research. Just like the view you have described. If one of them is acceptable in the article, so is the other. And if we include both, of course the evolutionist view described in the article should include what you are saying about the lies and the doubts and your conviction that they do not really believe. Just like the unfriendly things they have to say about the opposition belong in the article. One POV should, however, not declare its beliefs as the standard truth for all humanity and try to use it to keep another party's claim out of the encyclopedia.
If this were the way to go, and if this were still a discussion about the various versions of #3, we would have reached a stalemate now, to be decided by policy and/or reaching a consensus. Ready for yet another episode of struggle for life and survival of the fittest, over time shifting the article from one POV to another and then back again. As it seems to have happened to this article.
ENTER the new and shining interpretation of the old and dusty
WP:NPOV according to Saint Jimbo.
We're saved. We do not have to re-enact the battle here at Wikipedia. We only have to report what's out there.
(to be continued... ) AvB ÷ talk 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
First a reminder of what this dispute is about: I have required a citation underpinning who (...) dispute creationism as an important battle between truth and falsehood. The citation has not been provided. When I added the {{ Fact}} tag, it was removed. This does not change my opinion that this part of the sentence must be removed as original research. The only person who has discussed this specific dispute with me so far is Guettarda. I'm now continuing this discussion.
I've discovered you are an admin so I feel I do not have to explain all aspects of NPOV to you. I'll just touch briefly on the very heart of WP:NPOV, its basis. And we're talking basic NPOV here. The new and shiny interpretation of NPOV happens to be the revival of something very old. Please listen to an explanation from Larry Sanger's 2001 NPOV draft:
As you can see, Wikipedia articles can state an opinion for a fact by attributing it. (Please also note that, in this context, "believe" has the same meaning as "view".) Whether or not an editor believes what is reported does not make a difference. Sanger's example is a nice one. At the very core of NPOV we find an explanation that tells us we cannot publish our opinion on what people say about themselves. All we have to do is report what they say. Granted, the current WP:NPOV has dropped the "God exists" example, but its replacement is:
What exactly can be verified: That people say they believe something. And still we take their word for it and report it as a fact.
I trust you as an admin will not be arguing that something as fundamental as the core principle of WP:NPOV can be trumped by consensus on an article talk page. Applying this core explanation of WP:NPOV to the disputed sentence:
IF you report from a survey or other source that all people who dispute creationism view this as a battle of truth (people that are speaking the truth) against untruthfulness (creationists who are lying) AND you attribute that as an opinion THEN the statement can be left in place.
As you can see, I am expanding the dispute. Even if the required citation is provided, the disputed text still has to be rephrased, attributing it to those who hold the viewpoint instead of stating for a fact that opponents of creationism speak the truth and that vocal creationists lie. For now, in anticipation of the required citation, I will edit the sentence to read:
I propose we give it another week. Providing a citation should be easy if this characterizes the dispute according to many creationism opponents. I should add that I could not find anything like it when I tried. AvB ÷ talk 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys...
Whoever keeps removing the POV template from the article page needs to stop doing that. The neutrality of this article is disputed, and the tag says exactly that. Removing the POV tag is vandalism, and will be dealt with as such.
Thanks, EChronicle 21:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I too will remove this tag if I notice it. The evidence I see overwhelmingly shows that this article has managed to negotiate a controversial topic with admirable interaction and compromise from editors who fall on both sides of the debate, as well as a few who do not fall on either side or are integrative in their perspective... Kenosis 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I too agree the article does not need a POV tag, EChronicle, please demonstrate there is indeed a violation of WP:NPOV before adding the tag. Mikker ... 13:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a general consensus that this article doesn't need the POV tag. I disagree, but I'm not going to do anything more about the tag for now. But, I do have some consensus that the second paragraph of the article is POV, and would appreciate your comments on my above proposal. Also I'd appreciate if you'd stop bickering over the term "evolutionist". That causes a whole lot of discussion about basically nothing. -- EChronicle
That tag certainly needs to be their. In fact, as of now, I think it's fairly clear that this article has not maintained it's nuetrality. Though the Christian opinions are presented, the manner in which they are is made to seem ignorant and naive in most of the cases. However, most of the intelligent arguments of the Church seem to be entirely excluded. As well, there is included a fair bit of evidence against Creationism, and for Darwinism. Yet there is basically no solid evidence presented for the religious point of view. From my individual studies in theology, archaeology, paleontology, and anthropology, I can easily confirm that the evidence exists, and in large quantities. As well, if it didn't, the controversy wouldn't have lasted over a century. I will attempt to make a contribution to this article, when and if I get the time. In the mean-time, I think it would be beneficial to this article if someone else would take the initiative to contribute to this article's nutarality. (unsigned by 69.158.167.86)
To All:
This is just a suggestion... The discussion "POV Second Paragraph" has probably gotten to a point where we need to start with a new fresh discussion. Could we move that discussion to the archives and let's give it another go-round, (and not have so much debate as far as evolution vs. creationist/ID)?
Again, it was only a suggestion, and if its not a good idea, it doesn't need to be done.
Thanks, -- EChronicle 15:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
To let you all know, I am IP 69.158.167.86. Well, if you're interested in the evidence, my discussion for it will be in the creationism discussion, as it's a pain to post it more than one place. Thanks. =D -- Waenishikusu 21:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful about our characterizations. Here's how I would do it: The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs (particularly to a plain reading of the Bible) and criticize scientific descriptions of origins from this perspective, and those who have a prior commitment to a naturalistic scientific method who either contextualize or reject religious origin beliefs in the light of scientific findings. --> "plain reading" is better than literal reading as many creationists insist they don't believe in literalism. "Criticize" is more appropriate a descriptor than "judge" because it carries a more negative connotation. "Rational" is a superfluous and argumentative adjective. Assuming that religious opposition to creationism relies on modification of religious belief is actually a creationist/atheist POV. "Contextualize" is more appropriate than "modify". -- ScienceApologist 13:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions that Creationists claim evolution is a religion. This depends on your definition of religion. Most people would not define evolution as a religion. Evolution is a belief system though because it starts off with an assumed presupposition as does Creationism. Creationists presuppose that God exists and the Bible is 100% true.(at least all that I've ever met) Evolutionists presuppose that if God exists (a huge if in the Theory of Evolution) he is not the God outlined in the Bible and that evolution happened somehow. Very few people realize they have presuppositions. These presuppositions can rarely be 'proven'. Science can not help because science can not prove anything. Even the Laws of Newton and the Laws of Thermodynamics need just one exception to disprove them. The Theory of Creation and The Theory of Evolution are both belief systems and what your presuppositions are determines what you will believe.
Even as a creationist, I have to agree.-- Waenishikusu 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it logically invalid to classify evolution as a belief system? Science is testable and observable. Neither creation nor evolution can be tested or observed. No one was at the beginning of time so we can not know what happened. We can study the evidence today but once again presuppositions will determine how this evidence is interpreted. I don't want to make this really long by giving a long and complicated example of presuppositions affecting science but I can tell you where I receive most of my information from and will leave it up to you to determine whether to visit this website: www.answersingenesis.org. Alisyd 17:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Not because of issues with presuppositions, but because the evidence was overwhelmingly against it. --> Explain that statement, por favor. -- EChronicle 19:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I know this is not the place for this debate... If you could answer my question, that would be helpful. I asked you to clarify your statement. Did you meant that the evidence was overwehelmingly against the whole bible? Since when did evolution win? That is why there is so much debate concerning Evolution v. Creationism. Evolution clearly does not have its facts down... there are big gaps in the fossil record... the mathematical improbability of it happening points away from evolution... and I could name numerous other examples from Biology, BioChemistry, Geology, etc, etc, etc. Evolution clearly hasn't won, and most likely about 20 years from now, people will be amazed that anyone thought macro-evolution actually happened. Again - could you please answer my question - that is, to clarify what you meant by your statement? Were you saying that the evidence was overwhelmingly against the Bible? -- EChronicle 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Look - I'm including the following analogy/illustration from Darwin's Black Box p. 192 by M. Behe that shows just how "settled" evolution is among scientists:
Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with magnifying glasses for any clue to the identity of the perpetrator. In the middle of the room, next to the body, stands a large, gray elephant. The detectives carefully avoid bumping nito the pachyderm's legs as they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives get frustrated with their lack of progress but resolutely press on, loking even more closely at the flor. You see, textbooks say detectives must "get their man," so they never consider elephants.
There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying to explain the development of life. The elephant is labeled "intelligent design." to a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed...
-- EChronicle 17:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Creation and Evolution both attempt to explain how we came into existence. Both have certain assumptions that can not be proven. Creation assumes that God created everything. If we are refering to the Biblical creation account, then this is assumed to be true even though there is no proof to back it up. Evolution assumes that either God doesn't exist or if he does he is not the God of the Bible. Evolution doesn't require God or any other supreme being. These are the preset beliefs and people either believe in them or they don't. These assumptions or presuppositions form the basis of these theories. None of them can be proven. Evidence can be made for or against but even then it requires that one trust the evidence and the person reporting the evidence. So then, it all comes down to what do you believe? or to who can argue their position better? I do not know if I am 100% correct on the evolutionary presuppositions but this is what I have come to understand from what I have heard evolutionists say. By the way, the majority opinion is not always right as has been evidenced by the geocentric universe and flat earth. But then again, it depends on what and who you believe. 209.145.244.126 18:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
In order to hold a logical argument, you must believe that the laws of logic are going to work. Agreed, that they do but it is a presupposition which one must believe before partaking in a logical argument. Alisyd 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You still have to believe that the correlations and models will work. Agreed, if you don't think that, there is no point in studying the universe, but you have to believe something and that will determine what you think. As for Tiktaalik, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Coelacanth in that same fossil strata layer? It has been found alive today and is not millions of years extinct. 209.145.244.126 15:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You still have to believe that the scientific method will work. Accuracy is also determined by your faith in your instrument's accuracy and your mind's capacity for interpreting that information and the correctness of the model. There are so many variables which one must believe every day. These assumptions or presuppositions make up how you will react to a given situation. I have a presupposition that the Bible is 100% truth. This presupposition determines how I interpret facts about the past (fossil record, origin of life, great flood(if you believe there was one)) and then how my interpretations of facts influence my thinking about what happened in the past. That's how presuppositions work and everyone has them. Alisyd 15:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm back.
A number of users have found the second paragraph of the article unsatisfactory for a couple of different reasons. The point of this one discussion (Second Paragraph) is not to discuss Creation vs. Evolution (I am fully willing to do that on the Creationism page, as Waenishikusu said.)
We have three proposals on hand: from Science_Apologist, Ming the Merciless, and me (EChronicle).
Ming the Merciless' proposal was the following: The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs (particularly to a literal reading of the Bible) and judge scientific accounts of the universe from this perspective, and those who have a prior commitment to rational and naturalistic scientific method and either modify or reject religious belief in the light of scientific findings. Within these camps are quite broad spectrums of opinion. --> First of all, that's just way too complicated. Second of all, leave out religion! Religion is not the point of this article, as this article shows. ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html)
Science_Apologist's proposal was: The main opposing sides are those who have a prior commitment to religious origin beliefs (particularly to a plain reading of the Bible) and criticize scientific descriptions of origins from this perspective, and those who have a prior commitment to a naturalistic scientific method who either contextualize or reject religious origin beliefs in the light of scientific findings. --> I wouldn't go with that because it makes it sound like creationists criticize scientific descriptions, and this proposal again mentions religion!
My proposal is: The main opposing sides are those who acknowledge an Intelligent Designer responsible for the universe's origin (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts of the universe's origin (such as Evolutionists). --> If you have a problem with being called "Evolutionists", then we will take out "such as Evolutionists" and "such as Creationists".
I'd appreciate your comments and suggestions, EChronicle 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The article's second paragraph as written is easy to understand. Very appropriate for an introduction to this article. I think all of the replacement 2nd paragraphs are less clear and too wordy for an introduction. FloNight talk 16:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
(culled from above)
There are a number of problems with this. First of all Intelligent designer is a neologism adopted by the Intelligent design movement and as such is too narrow a designation for the "big tent" creationists. "Evolutionists" should not be used as a term as can be read in the article, though there are no sources I know of where creationists object to being called "creationists". (Note that there are intelligent design advocates who claim they aren't promoting creationism, but this is a separate issue). So while it is appropriate to use creationist it is inappropriate to use evolutionist. -- ScienceApologist 17:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If you find the second paragraph inaccurate, modify the third paragraph a little bit and eliminate the second paragraph. Otherwise it seems redundant. FloNight talk 21:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea, because the third paragraph complements the second paragraph (But right now, both of those need to be tweaked as neither are verifiable or npov). Also, FloNight - maybe you should try to get consensus before removing the second paragraph? -- EChronicle 17:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this article states the following:
The main opposing sides are those who espouse religious origin beliefs (such as Creationists) and those who support naturalistic or scientific accounts provided by astrophysics, geology and biology.
That's an unverifiable and pov paragraph (as I've been saying all along), but I'm going to put a new twist on the "why". Why is it unverifiable? Because Secular Humanism (of which Evolution is the basis) is religious - it is a religion and a belief system - and this article infers/implies that only Creationists are "religious", thus giving Evolutionists more scientific crediblity. You might say you've heard that argument before etc, but guess what? The Humanist Manifesto, signed by many leading Evolutionists, admits it. They knew themselves they were espousing an anti-God religion/belief system.
I've looked at the talk.origins page on my "claim", but the whole of their "rebuttal" is misleading/erroneous/false.
-- EChronicle 15:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. What they do not realize is their belief system and evolution's belief system are incompatible. The Christian faith and the evolutionary faith are incompatible because then death and suffering enter before man and then there is no need for Jesus Christ. I refered to evolution as a belief because it requires presuppositions as does Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or Bhuddism or any other religion you can think of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisyd ( talk • contribs)
It has been said that the only presupposition of science is that the information we recieve from our senses is roughly accurate. Hardly a religion. Jefffire 15:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
... for recently improving the article in many places and also making it stronger by adding many citations. I also like your sourcing, copyediting and re-inserting of information I added (and saw reverted) a month ago - something I had meant to do myself but life happened...
However, I seem to detect a problem with one of the citations [Johnson, Phillip E. 1990. Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. First Things (Oct.), 15-22. http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm] (the one in support of my original edit, of all things). It doesn't cite a creationist calling their own plight a battle between good and evil: Johnson attributed the "good and evil" dichotomy to someone else, "William Provine, a leading historian of Darwinism," who blamed the scientific establishment itself for misleading the public about the absolute incompatibility of contemporary Darwinism with any belief in God, designing forces, or absolute standards of good and evil. Johnson goes on to write: According to Provine, "These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest."' (Also, I'm not sure that Johnson is a creationist in the sense of "biblical fundamentalist".)
Am I reading this correctly? AvB ÷ talk 11:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution" Douglas H. Erwin, Evolution & Development,Volume 2 Page 78 - March\April 2000,doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x,Volume 2 Issue 2 This seems to militate against the description in the article. Dan Watts 12:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article has problems - notably "Biologists argue that "macroevolution", "microevolution" and kind are non-scientific, inherently imprecise terms coined by creationists" - "kinds" maybe, but not the other two.
To begin with, despite the title of the paper, Erwin is asking a question, not making a statement. He begins by saying "Since all evolutionary change involves intraspecific modification and speciation, in a trivial sense macroevolution could be reduced to microevolution". The major idea he develops is one of scale. He talks about the fact that species with planktonic larvae are less prone to extinction than those with non-planktonic larvae - as a result, certain clades are less prone to extinction than other clades. Thus, there are macro patterns in evolution which cannot really be studied from a microevolutionary standpoint. You can't sum up microevolutionary change to explain why one whole clade is more successful than another clade, despite the fact that you can explain the differences within each lineage in microevolutionary terms.
In a real sense, this is like saying that you can't explain ecological phenomena, say, predator-prey dynamics, in molecular terms, despite the fact that you can explan what is going on in every individual in molecular terms. As a community ecologist, Erwin's ideas make a lot of sense. That said, these arguments don't invalidate the statement that macroevolution is microevolution writ large. Mechanistically, they are adequate, but they fail to explain the broader patterns in evolution, so yes, you can say that there is more to macroevolution than repeat rounds of microevolution. Guettarda 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is missing two very important topics:
These two creationist points are completely lacking in the article right now.
-- ScienceApologist 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, JoshuaZ. I would appreciate if you actually did some research before editing in such a POV & UnVerifiable way. I changed the last sentence of the paragraph "Terms of the controversy" (concerning the origin of life) from this:
For example, while almost all biologists consider it a matter of fact that life was formed through natural means, evolutionary theory in and of itself does not necessarily include abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter.
to this:
The origin of life is, however, fundamental to Evolutionary Biology, because it addresses where life came from.
And I had added a citation at the references section (except I don't know how to get the article to point to the cite - also, I couldn't get the cite to go directly under the "references" section, it only would go under "published books and other resources"), that pointed to evolution.berkeley.edu, that plainly contradicted your so called "the origin of life does not matter to evolution" belief.
The berkely article stated that the origin of life is of "special interest" to evolution and is "fundamental". Please explain how changing the article (and linking to a verifiable source) is pov-pushing?
-- EChronicle 13:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the majority is not always in the right, but neither is the minority. It is impossible to write anything without being biased unless you honestly don't care about the subject in which case you won't write anything no it unless you must. The origins of life is outside the scope of evolution but evolution still needs to base its assumption upon where we came from. Evolution claims that we have come through a long, slow process to where we are now starting from simple one-celled bacteria which had to get here somehow. If God is taken out of the picture then we had to come from non-living matter. In fact, if God is taken out of the picture, we can't be sure we evolved in the right way or even what right means in that context. We are an accident according to evolutionary theory. Even if God did create, he can't be the perfect omnipotent God of the Bible because the God that creates and lets evolution do the rest would be a liar if he was the God of the Bible and he would not be the close personal God He professes to be, but some distant holy being who has absolutely no concern for his creation, just letting them kill off each other for hundreds of billions of years. Does that sound like a loving God? Evolution has to make some assumptions either way as does Creationism or whatever else you believe. 209.145.244.126 16:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
EChronicle, you're making a lot of the page you link to, but if you check the index it doesn't feature as a main part of "Evolution 101": as far as I can see, you've got to go through 1. Introduction and nine pages of 2. The history of life: before you find a link to it as "Take a sidetrip". It can also be reached from the home page in a section at the foot headed "HIghlights". You also seem to be misinterpreting the text. As the page says, "within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from." That's not the same as saying this "special interest" is "fundamental to Evolutionary Biology", except in the widest sense that without life there would be no discussion. The sentence you attribute to JoshuaZ is accurate and NPOV ... dave souza, talk 17:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Dave, to deal with your first point, there's two identical pages on their website that are called "From soup to cells - the origin fo life". The one I pointed to is: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_01, which is listed under "Evolution 101", and the other one is http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01 , which is listed as a side-trip. To deal with your next point, I'm not misinterpreting the text. This is what the Berkely page states:
However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.
And here is what I wrote:
The origin of life is, however, fundamental to Evolutionary Biology, because it addresses where life came from.
The Berkely text is saying that the origin of life is of special interest to EB because it is a fundamental question. That's what I wrote in my quote, except I left out the "special interest" part.
I'm not attributing the following sentence to JoshuaZ (For example, while almost all biologists consider it a matter of fact that life was formed through natural means, evolutionary theory in and of itself does not necessarily include abiogenesis, the formation of life out of non-living matter.)- what I'm saying is that the sentence is POV and non-verifiable (the berkely article shows that) , and what I changed it to is NPOV and Verifiable.
What I've written to you, dave, also addresses the remarks made by Jefffire....
As far as what Guetterda wrote, if the production of energy by the sun is fundamental to life, then evolution's got to figure out how the sun was able to start producing energy! I agree with him in that Evolution can not explain the origin of life nor can any materialistic/naturalistic processes. But, even though it cannot, it must! Also, if Evolution can answer for it all, then fine. But if Evolution can not answer for it all, and you have to attribute the origin of life to God, then just attribute the whole thing to God! Because we have evidence that God does exist, that Jesus did live on this earth for a time and is who he said he is (the creator), and we have evidence that the bible is true and factual (any alleged "contradictions" have been "solved" time and time again) - we know that the God of the Bible created life, and he did it in six days. He did not use evolution.
209.145.244.126, the loving God/Hell scenario "problem" just doesn't hold up. I don't have enough time to go through that, so why don't you try a google search or check out "Case for a Creator" at your local library (By Lee Strobel)??? -- EChronicle 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah dear, Ec, there's no problem with the Berkeley quote in its context. Although it seems superfluous to me, it fits well in the original sentence:
But for some reason you seem to want to dispense with the second part of the sentence. By cherry picking words out of context to construct your own argument that "The origin of life is... fundamental to Evolutionary Biology", you then apparently dispute the operation of evolution theory without regard to the origin of life. That's a violation of WP:NOR#What is excluded? in introducing an analysis or synthesis to build a particular case you favor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.
You seem to be putting forward a standard creationist claim, suitable citations responding to this are at Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism: section iii: abiogenesis "The first thing that needs to be stressed about abiogenesis is that it is separable from evolutionary theory. One can consistently accept every tenet of evolution yet believe that the very first organisms from which contemporary life evolved were created. One can likewise consistently believe that life arises spontaneously from nonlife, yet reject the notion that life evolves." and TalkOrigins "The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution." Unsurprisingly, the Berkeley teaching resource in no way disputes these points. ... dave souza, talk 14:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm excited for this section, boys and girls! A lot of ins, a lot of outs. I've begun collecting Wikilinks. Please add salient articles you know of for this section below.
-- ScienceApologist 06:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The assertation that evolution is supported by astrophysics in included in the opening paragraph. No references are provided, nor are their examples given within the article itself. The only applicable instance in which physics could be used to justify the field of biology is in verifying the age of the universe. This point is not necessarily valid in all creation-evolution debates, as not all creationists hold with the young earth theory ( Talk.Origins). Unless a valid argument is presented for justifying this inclusion, it needs to be omitted. -- Coldbourne 14:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is not just about evolutionary theory, but about eveery facet of science which is neccacery to it, such as an old Earth. Jefffire 17:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Gracias. -- Coldbourne 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to sort out the article, but the article should make mention Judaism takes no part in the Christians and friends crusade against science. The Rabbinical Council of America has issued a letter on Judaism say:
December 22nd 2005
21 Kislev 5766
In light of the ongoing public controversy about Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design, the RCA notes that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.
There are authentic, respected voices in the Jewish community that take a literalist position with regard to these issues; at the same time, Judaism has a history of diverse approaches to the understanding of the biblical account of creation. As Rabbi Joseph Hertz wrote, "While the fact of creation has to this day remained the first of the articles of the Jewish creed, there is no uniform and binding belief as to the manner of creation, i.e. as to the process whereby the universe came into existence. The manner of the Divine creative activity is presented in varying forms and under differing metaphors by Prophet, Psalmist and Sage; by the Rabbis in Talmudic times, as well as by our medieval Jewish thinkers." Some refer to the Midrash (Koheleth Rabbah 3:13) which speaks of God "developing and destroying many worlds" before our current epoch. Others explain that the word "yom" in Biblical Hebrew, usually translated as "day," can also refer to an undefined period of time, as in Isaiah 11:10-11. Maimonides stated that "what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses" (Guide to the Perplexed II:29), and recent Rabbinic leaders who have discussed the topic of creation, such as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, saw no difficulty in explaining Genesis as a theological text rather than a scientific account.
Judaism affirms the idea that God is the Creator of the Universe and the Being responsible for the presence of human beings in this world.
Nonetheless, there have long been different schools of thought within Judaism regarding the extent of divine intervention in natural processes. One respected view was expressed by Maimonides who wrote that "we should endeavor to integrate the Torah with rational thought, affirming that events take place in accordance with the natural order wherever possible.? (Letter to the Jews of Yemen) All schools concur that God is the ultimate cause and that humanity was an intended end result of Creation.
For us, these fundamental beliefs do not rest on the purported weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory, and cannot be undermined by the elimination of gaps in scientific knowledge.
Judaism has always preferred to see science and Torah as two aspects of the "Mind of God" (to borrow Stephen Hawking's phrase) that are ultimately unitary in the reality given to us by the Creator. As the Zohar says (Genesis 134a): "istakel be-'oraita u-vara 'alma," God looked into the Torah and used it as His blueprint for creating the Universe. [5]
(Yes, the RCA's website isn't so great) eeemess 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, many other jewish groups have massive problems (for example the Lubavitchers and most other chassidic groups). JoshuaZ 13:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago,
"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
Notice "creationism derived from" as part of the statement under contention. Whatever rabbis are saying now (and note that some Orthodox rabbis don't accept evolution), it can't be argued that creationism isn't heavily influenced by Genesis. Ladlergo 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Since there exists fundamentalist Jews who accept creationism, it is inappropriate to remove the reference to fundamentalist Judaism as a basis for certain creationist beliefs. Please refrain from doing so. Also the added paragraph does not belong here. Put it in Jewish creationism. Thanks, -- ScienceApologist 13:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me quote from the fundamentalism article. Most Jewish denominations believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) cannot be understood literally or alone, but rather needs to be read in conjunction with additional material known as the oral law; this material is contained in the Mishnah, Talmud, Gmara and Midrash. While the Tanakh is not read in a literal fashion, Orthodox Judaism does view the text itself as divine, infallible, and transmitted essentially without change, and places great import in the specific words and letters of the Torah. As well, some adherents of Orthodox Judaism, especially Haredi Judaism, see the Mishnah, Talmud and Midrash as divine and infallible in content, if not in specific wording. Hasidic Jews frequently ascribe infallibility to their Rebbe's interpretation of the traditional sources of truth. On the other hand the Karaites according to the "are a Jewish sect which does not recognize the authority of the post-Biblical tradition incorporated in the Talmud and in the latter Rabbinic works."- You see it even says so in the fundamentalism. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
We aren't saying that the majority of Jews are creationists in this article, only that there are creationist thoughts which derive from Judaism. Claiming these advocates are non-notable is beside the point. -- ScienceApologist 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What nonsense. Let me quote myself with the typos:
I think I made myself very clear. There are such people. HOWEVER, they are not fundementalist by defination. The statement says primarily the forms of creationism derived from fundamentalist ... You can not include Judaism in such a statement. If you wish you can state there are some unfundamentalistic Jews who have such views. But you can not say its the view of fundamental Judaism. Please stop censoring Jewish fundamental views. Please self-revert yourself. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 19:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This is still essentially the view that YECist Jews aren't fundementalist because you don't believe they are. YECist Jews simply place a greater weight on the Old Testament than other texts. Thus a "fundementalist Jew" could be YEC. Jefffire 20:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That is original research. Sure all fundemental Jews are anti-evolution as in anti the Richard Dawkins school of evolution. Not evolution it self. Most fundemental Jews (as I have sourced above and they were actually Jews) understand the universe of existing before the creation of the heavens and the earth. Likewise, with water. And do not mistranslate "Yom Ehad" as first day as most christian creationist do. Rather they translate it as one day. You can see in the sources I brought above of actual Jews (not a Gentile like the AiG article). The Ramban commentates on "Yom Ehad" and explains why it doesn't say "Yom Rishon" (first day) stating that a day wasn't defined yet and this is was when it was. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 23:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The article says fundamentalist or religiously conservative groups. EMS seems to think that there are no religiously conservative groups that use this interpretation which are also Jewish. This is clearly false. Upon unprotection, Jewish needs to go back in as duly referenced. -- ScienceApologist 04:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
EMS - can you explain what you mean by the "Richard Dawkins' school of evolution"? Do you mean that Judaism rejects gene-centred evolution in favour of group selection? Isn't that just neo-Nazi propaganda? Guettarda 05:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll quote this from Rashi - an commentator that many Haredi rabbis endorse: Rabbis stated (Letters of Rabbi Akiva, second letter; Genesis Rabbah 1:6; Leviticus Rabbah 36:4): Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation. If you say that Scripture indicates the order of creation be astounded at yourself, for the water preceded, as it is written: (Genesis 1:2) “and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water,” and Scripture did not yet disclose when the creation of water took place! From this you learn that the water preceded the earth. Perforce, you must admit that Scripture did not teach us anything about the sequence of the earlier and the later acts of creation. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 09:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
On YEC and OEC. The Jewish understanding that sourced to say both dates are correct and show how. Jews reject them individually. They reject both schools. However, they have their own school of understanding. [20] ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 09:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This post claims chabad rabbis teaching in this way. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 10:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The sentence in question says that YECism come from "fundentalist or religously consevative" people. Even if you believe that YEC jews aren't fundementalist surely the term "religously conservative" still applies, making your point moot. After all, what were they all believing three hundred years ago? Jefffire 11:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
On the matter of Rabbis banning an advertisement which shows a evolution of an ape to a human. Rabbinical literature states humans were created with tails until the time of Noah people had webbed fingures, etc. None of these things can be found in apes. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Rashi commentary is the simple/literal understanding of the Torah and is highly criticized for it. The Maharal said you should first teach a child the real meaning of the Torah before the simple. He actually forbid teaching Rashi to children. Rashi's understanding would be the fundamental reading of the Torah. And what does Rashi say? He says the word "Bere'shit" is grammatically connected (it doesn't mean in the beginning rather in the beginning of $the_next_word) to the next word as we can see every other time "re'shit" is used in the Torah it is connected to the next word. He also says if the Torah wanted to teach the order of creation is would of used the word "bere'shona" which is the grammatical correct word. Rashi says If you say that Scripture indicates the order of creation be astounded at yourself, for the water preceded, as it is written: (Genesis 1:2) “and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water,” and Scripture did not yet disclose when the creation of water took place! From this you learn that the water preceded the earth. Perforce, you must admit that Scripture did not teach us anything about the sequence of the earlier and the later acts of creation. Literal understanding of Genesis is NOT using some inaccurate Christian translation! Literal understanding in Judaism is very different to Christianity and Islam. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The conflict centers primarily around the defensibility of creationism (primarily the forms of creationism derived from fundamentalist or religiously conservative Christian and Islamic accounts of origins) that holds the scientific explanations of origins to be antithetical to creation theology, and oftentimes, more specifically, Creation according to Genesis.
That is the part which seems to be causeing theological trouble. As you can see it lists "creation according to genesis" as a specific, but "creation theology" is given as the generic, which covers different interpratation using the other holy books. It seems to me that is whole arguement is down to misreading the intro. Jefffire 16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I support this reversion. This large paragraph doesn't belong in this article (regardless of the merits it may or may not have - perhaps it's something for the Haredi Jews article). The Creation-evolution controversy article clearly deals with subsets of these religions who qualify as creationists. The inserted text is about one religion's) subset who do not qualify as creationists. As such, the entire text needs to go. No need to invoke any policy at all (although several would apply).
However, this does not resolve the root problem: some editors dispute the existence of a notable subset of creationists amongst Haredi Jews. Since no citations have been provided, and the burden of proof is on those who want this infoprmation included in the article, I suggest {{fact}} tagging the reference to Haredi Jews. Outright removal does not seem helpful to the building of an encyclopedia. Ultimately it may be removed, together with the "Judaism/Jewish" reference, if no citations are provided in a month or so. AvB ÷ talk 09:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)