Talk:History of creationism

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

To the extent that Darwin's ideas gave rise to the movement known as "Creationism", it is appropriate to mention Darwin and his ideas. Philip J. Rayment 15:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

<<Creationism as a movement arose in reaction to Darwinism so of course it is relevant to consider it.>>

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

<<This led to millions abandoning creationism, and the rise of Old-Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design, are those not massive changes in the controversy for starters?>>

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, after logging off last night, I had the thought that instead of "belief", "view", "doctrine", or similar, perhaps the best wording is Creationism is the movement... I agree with Steinsky in that creationism as a movement only began as a response to Darwinism, and even though before that there were creationists, and debate about creation vs. something else, the word creationism was not used in that context. (Rednblu, did you look at these links--[1] [2] [3]-- that I previously included?)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

Steinsky 19:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Would you agree with the following?

1. Intelligent design is not science, so the "creationism movement" was not affected by the science in Darwin's idea.
2. The "creationism movement" displays repeated ignorance of what Darwin's idea really was; so when they unite, they cannot be uniting against Darwin's actual idea. ---Rednblu 20:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

1. ID is not science, but it is dressed up as science because the creatonism movement was affected by the fact that it felt threatened by the science in Darwin's ideas.
2. Many creationists show an ignorance of the details of Evolution (both Darwin's ideas and post-Darwin detals), but the controversy that they have built is described as Creation vs Evolution. Perhaps I should have said that the movement is united against Darwinism, but obviously Darwin's ideas are still central to that. --Steinsky 20:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

1. ID is as much science as evolution is. It is studying the evidence and offering an explanation for that evidence.
2. Many in the creation movement know as much about evolution as the next man, or the next scientist. In fact many of them were evolutionists originally, and in some cases actually studied and/or taught evolution. And in my observation, creationists know far more about evolution than evolutionists know about creation, which is consistent with the fact that most creationists get taught evolution, but very few evolutionists ever get taught creation.
   Philip J. Rayment 16:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Totally disputed

Sorry about this. The best way about this would be to increase its size, reasonably easily, mention pre-Darwinian ideas through to ID from the 1990s. Some of its tone is wrong, comparing Mendel to Darwin for example is wrong. Mendel had read Darwin, but didn't understand the significance of his own work. Darwin didn't know about Mendel, and it was then until 1901 that Mendel's work was rediscovered, and then until 1918 that Fisher worked out how it could apply to continuous variation, thus kick-starting the modern synthesis. The first stage would be to split it up into sections by era. Dunc|☺ 12:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe that Mendel deserves to be mentioned. Philip J. Rayment 14:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, he needs a mention somewhere, but it needs to be proportional and accurate! What was there before was a ridiculous comparison between Darwinism and Mendelism suggesting that the latter was somehow an alternative to the former. Dunc|☺ 16:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

they WERE alternatives. darwin thought there was no stability within species. mendel thought there was. they were opposites, and that's why mendelism made darwinism irrelevent for a time. creationism today emphasizes the mendelian side -- evolutionism emphasizes the darwinian side. Ungtss 18:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no. There is a theory that Mendel thought that he had discovered immutable "types", but what Mendelism lead to, i.e. genetics is fundamental to ToE. If you like Darwinism is the wheel of the bicycle, genetics is the frame. Darwin just had the wheels, a unicycle perhaps! Anyway, Dobzhansky didn't do the modern evolutionary synthesis by himself, Wright came before him, though he did define evolution as a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool, and he certainly did write Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Dunc|☺ 22:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

agreed, with one caveat: in melding darwinism + mendelism, the ToE stripped mendelism of stability within kinds -- creationists won't have it stripped -- creationism depends on it. Ungtss 22:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

um ... excuse me. you keep cutting any reference to the orthogenetic period. you're drawing a straight line from darwin through mendel to the synthesis, and that line is patently false. put up or shut up. Ungtss 23:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I have an explanation. Some more notes; Dobzhansky wasn't Soviet, he left quite early for the States. On the other hand, Haldane and Maynard Smith were both communists and Fisher was a fascist. The modern evolutionary synthesis was a synthesis of Mendelian genetics and natural selection, not micro/macroevolution. All sorts of theories were proposed in the period between Darwin's death and rediscovery of Mendel's work there was the eclipse of Darwinism, and then Mendel's work kicked off a feud between Bateson and Pearson that lasted until 1918 at least. We need more on Lamarckism, perhaps Lineaus too. The idea of "kind" should be mentioned in the original description of the biblical myth. Let's get the groundwork in first. Dunc|☺ 23:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

fair enough:). Ungtss 23:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the synthesis was a fusion of micro/macro too -- there's a theodosius quote right on point. Ungtss 23:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mendel and Orthogenesis.

And on Mendel...

Mendel did his work on plant hybridisation in 1865. It seems he had read Darwin and was probably familiar with the theories of orthogenesis around at the time. It seems that he did not realise what his findings meant and that perhaps he did believe that it supported the unmutability of species. However, his work was then cited three times in the next 35 years — No-one read it, so it did not and could not have influenced anyone. To go to the true roots of orthogenesis you need to look to earlier works (as explained in the article). Drop out Mendel, it sounds so much like a misguided plea to authority.

When Mendelian genetics was rediscovered in 1901, it was recognised as giving a method of heredity, not orthogenesis and which discounted orthogenesis. A feud between the Mendelians and the Biometricians would take until 1918 before it was realised that continuous variation could arise from Mendelian inheritance, but from then on it was plain sailing for the modern synthesis. This period really is the eclipse of Darwinism.

The modern synthesis came initially from three population geneticists, Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane and Sewall Wright in the 1920s. Gradually other areas of biology such as palaeontology realised what these mathematical treatises meant and came aboard. Dobzhansky's principle work was studing the genetics of fruit flies on Hawaii; he only left Russia in 1927 and it would be until 1937 that he published Genetics and the Origin of Species. Dobzhansky was important but he wasn't the father of the modern synthesis; Fisher is more important. Dunc|☺ 17:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

protoscience

alright, let's get an analytical issue straighted out. define protoscience. the wikipedia article defines it as "the term protoscience is used to describe a new area of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established."

• 1) no reference to strict naturalism in there -- so why does "true science" by definition require strict naturalism?
• 2) by the principle of falsifiability, isn't all science by definition protoscience, until the "next and more sophisticated theory" comes around? isn't "true science" ultimately just what YOU happen to think is right, until a TRUER SCIENCE comes along?
• 3) if your definition of "protoscience" is strict naturalism on the part of the scientist, then you're going to have to exclude a lot of people, including Einstein, who wanted to meet God so he could ask Him why he made the universe. you're also going to have to include as TRUE scientists philosophers like Epicureus, who had a lot of bunk ideas about science, but was a true naturalist.

So what's your definition of protoscience, so we can stay consistent? Ungtss 01:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you have to distinguish purely naturalistic science from the faith-based beliefs of the scientists. The two are compatible. Protoscience would be something where a model includes a God of the Gaps argument as well as observations and predictions; science proper would be purely naturalistic. Over time work gradually became more scientific. Scientists can and do believe in the supernatural, but if their work is purely natural, then it is science. So, Einstein was a scientist and he believed in God.

you're making a dualistic argument -- we can believe in God, but we can't believe he actually DID anything. When you define God that way, then occam's razor slices him off by default -- he becomes a hobby and a coping mechanism for our fear and loneliness. the only rational basis for theistic belief is EVIDENCE of His acts, and you have sliced that off in your definition of "pure naturalism." i submit that none of your "protoscientists" would say that they believed the universe could be explained totally naturalistically. they'd say that God's fingerprints were all over the thing, and they believed in God with their MINDS, not only their hearts. you've defined "true science" in such a way as to exclude rational theism by definition, and 3000 years of "true scientists" beg to differ with you. einstein held that a "cosmic religious feeling" was required for true science OR true religion to function properly. Ungtss 18:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Science is made up of little bits of the whole. It would be entirely possible for someone to contribute to one part of science and believe something unscientific within another, or outside of science, as has been demonstrated by the those who have believed and contributed to science, and that is not neccessarily reduced to Deism. I have not defined science, philosophers of science have, you want to redefine it. there may be a job for you at the discovery institute. Dunc|☺ 23:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

seems to me naturalism has done a little redefining itself in the last 50 years or so:). Ungtss 00:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, with regard to scientific philsophy there are the falsifiability arguments and what should happen and then there is what does happen within the scientific community. If someone got things wrong, fair enough, work only becomes science through acceptance by the scientific community, and this acceptance changes, i.e. a paradigm shift. The scientific community didn't really exist for much of history, which is a problem for acceptance. As an example in the text, Lord Kelvin's orginal calculations for the age of the Earth were scientific (he also was a theist), but ultimately wrong because he didn't know about radioactivity. Dunc|☺ 17:18, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

is it not equally possible that the scientific consensus of today could be falsified tomorrow? Ungtss 18:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. See paradigm shift. Dunc|☺ 23:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<<science proper would be purely naturalistic. ... Scientists can and do believe in the supernatural, but if their work is purely natural, then it is science.>>
Why?
<<...work only becomes science through acceptance by the scientific community...>>
And here's me thinking that it was science because it followed the scientific method, not because of a popularity vote among scientists!
Philip J. Rayment 12:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

lol:). don't be silly, mr. rayment -- that sort of thinking went out of fashion years ago -- it's "protoscience:)." Ungtss 13:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Science is defined by work using the scientific method. If it is not falsifiable (i.e. there is no way of proving it wrong) then it is not, in fact, science. There is, however, a difference between something you cannot disprove absolutely and cannot disprove currently; for instance, black holes were hypothesized as existing years before they were found. Their existance could have been disproved by finding an object which should have been a black hole but wasn't, such as a neutron star of above the threshold required to create a black hole.

Using supernatural arguments is inherently unscientific because it by its very nature relies on something whose action (or very existance) cannot be observed or disproved. This is why creationism is not scientific.

Science thus must be naturalistic, because only purely naturalistic processes can be observed and thus falsified. Titanium Dragon 02:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your definition of science, and I agree that using supernatural arguments is inherently unscientific.

• However, that doesn't make those arguments wrong.
• Unique past events are also inherently unscientific. There is no theoretical way to apply the scientific method to such events, unless you have a time machine handy.
• Science needs to be naturalistic to the extent of its practice, as it can't test the supernatural, but that is a limitation of science, which limitation should prevent it making pronouncements on things it can't test, such as supernatural explanations.
• Whilst both naturalistic and supernaturalistic explanations of past events are unfalsifiable, certain predictions of both are falsifiable. I have been told numerous times, for example, that science has proven flood geology wrong, indicating that at least some aspects of it are falsifiable.
• I don't claim that creationism is scientific. I claim that creationism is as scientific as goo-to-you evolution. Strictly, neither are scientific as both are claims about unique past events. Both, however, can use the tools of science to see which one is more consistent with the available evidence.

Philip J. Rayment 14:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

presumption

i think uniformitarianism is better described as a presumption, rather than an assumption. pre implies deliberation -- a implies no thought at all. uniformitarianism is chosen by the mainstream geologists because they consider it most parsimonious -- it's deliberate, although they don't like to talk about it very much:). Ungtss 13:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'll accept that, although I figured that a- meant that there was no basis for it, whereas pre- suggested some basis. Plus pre- has connotations of arrogance. Philip J. Rayment 14:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yeah -- i hearya -- that's the thing -- their basis for it is occam's razor -- don't presume things were different if you can presume they were the same -- it's simpler. i think it's got a certain logic to it ... but so did Newtonism -- and parsimonious theories are only as good as their explaining power. IMO, uniformitarianism fails miserably to explain a lot of things:). Ungtss 14:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Namely? Uniformitism is a theory to explain how the universe works; it is not really an assumption but a theory. There are no indications the constants of the universe have changed to any signficant degree since the Big Bang. There is no evidence that radioactive decay rates are changing in either direction to a significant degree, or that the speed of light has changed to any significant degree. Of course, one could argue we could only measure them with precision in the last century or so, but still. There is no scientific reason to reject the theory of uniformitism. Titanium Dragon 02:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

uniformitarianism is a THEORY? how so? what are the falsifiable predictions:)? Ungtss 03:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I notice that you are arguing from a lack of evidence ("There is no evidence that...", etc.). But there is evidence that radioactive decay rates have changed to a significant degree. I'd agree with you on the other two points (universal constants and the speed of light), but point out that they are assumptions, not facts. Science was predicated on the assumption (among others) that the laws of physics don't change, because they were created by an unchanging God, whereas naturalistic beliefs believe that they don't change because...? The main objection that creationists have to uniformitarianism is not the idea of the constants not changing, but that geological processes that we see today are (almost) sufficient to explain the entire geological record, thus ruling out a global catastrophe such as the Noahic deluge on the basis of this assumption. Philip J. Rayment 14:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

humanist manifesto

I cut the humanist manifesto, the reason being (1) that it's too early, theists were complaining about Godlessness way before then, and (2) atheism has traditionally been a rather unorganised church-less movement, perhaps it's something to do with rebellion. Anyway, what is important and is difficult starting from event driven basis is to get the social history right, i.e. subtle changes over time rather than significant publications or trials. Dunc|☺ 20:48, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

all good points. however, without the humanist manifesto, your reference to the fundamentalists leaves the false implication that creationism grounded in fundamentalism, as opposed to all other non-religious rational scientists, who have no bias and have come naturally to the conclusion of the historical fact of evolution. that is pov nonsense. the majority of creationists are not fundamentalist (almost 50 percent in america), and many atheists have called themselves religious, so the implication of "fundamentalism " versus "unbiased rational thought" is patently unfair. here's my proposal: leave both in, or take both out. i'm gonna try and put it back in in an appropriate place -- take it out if you still don't like it -- other than that, tho, great work:). Ungtss 22:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One of the problems we are going to hit is that there are a variety of flavours of creationism and often the most vocal are the YECs, and inevitively they will get their space. I'm a bit concerned about you pushing your pov, btw. Unfortunately we don't have a history of atheism. see here for a good review of interwar period. Likewise, post-war the Cold War is hugely more important that the humanist manifesto. The HM is simply far too unsubtle to convey those nuances.

If you insist on keeping it let's try to get those subtleties in before removing the paragraph. Dunc|☺ 23:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i'm all about some subtlety, as long as there's a reference:). likewise, there are many things more significant than the fundamentalist treatise (there are a lot of creationists who DON'T believe in inerrancy, but DO believe it's as accurate as any historical document of today, if not more -- i for one think inerrancy's a joke:); and i'm only pushing my pov as hard as you push back, my friend -- i think we're on our way to a really good article:). Ungtss 01:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where is the article?

<<Creationists also argued that Gould's proposed mechanism defeats itself, as it holds that large developments take place in limited gene pools, when in fact limited gene pools lead to inbreeding and the subsequent deterioration of a species, not its development.>>

I don't think so. :) Where is the article? Gould, as far as I know, did not write about gene pools so small that there would be deleterious effects from inbreeding. Besides, as far as I know, Gould was not talking about speciations that take place in a hundred years. The span is more like a million years, is it not? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I thought that bit was a very dodgy. PE works on the basis that there is rapid sppn rates into unnocupied niches, and that sppn occurs across many spp and for a time until all niches are occupied and whence eqbm is reached. The timespan for a single sppn event is a lot shorter than a mass sppn event.

While we're at it, there are some other things missing and that are wrong too. the creation myth section at the top needs to be explained as what it says in the Bible, i.e. no pseudogenetics; interpretation as such only comes in with "creation science" in the 20th century (and we've only had true genetics since 1900 anyway) Dunc|☺ 10:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

from talk.origins (a highly creation-biased site):

Punctuated Equilibria postulates that speciation events comprise most of the evolutionary change seen in adaptation. This is a consequence of the inhibitory effects of gene flow, genetic homeostasis, and large population sizes (6 above). The adaptations of newly speciated daughter populations are forever excluded from the ancestral population because of reproductive isolation (2 above).

[here's one article] from a mainstream, non-creationist, discussing the issues, and saying, "It is not until the last section of the paper that Eldredge and Gould (1972) explain the actual mechanism of change in their theory: a mutation which causes a temporary breakdown of developmental homeostasis. A developmental mutation might result in not just one big change at a time, but several, depending on how early in development it occurs. The mutant will be born very different from its parents, although possibly not yet reproductively isolated from its parental species. Loss of canalization is likely to be associated with a developmental mutation. Both the mutation and the developmental lability will be passed on, so the mutant's offspring will also be different from normal individuals of the parent species and highly variable. A period of intense selection afterwards wipes out most of these mutants if they have maladaptive or simply inviable phenotypes. Selection quickly restores canalization as well, but with the new morph as "normal", in which case the mutants will no longer be able to interbreed with members of the parent species and are forced to breed only with each other. Selection will reduce genetic variance, resulting in long period of stasis. Eldredge and Gould (1972) argue that it is developmental homeostasis that ordinarily maintains morphological stability and allows members of a species to interbreed."

So, Mr. Harris, you're right about the niche's but you're dodging the issue of reproductive isolation. once the "daughter species" is cut off, it's in a VERY small gene-pool -- which is seen to be advantageous to evolution as it counters the "inhibitory effects of gene flow, genetic homeostasis, and large population sizes" -- all of which are CENTRAL to creationism, but CORE problems with evolution. so gould says, "no -- these are "speciation events" where a "daughter species" branches off from the main one, in a limited and isolated reproductive pool." that's inbreeding.

citable ones:

SoulŽ, M.E. and L.S. Mills. 1998. No need to isolate genetics. Science 282: 1658.

Wetermeirer, R.L., J.D. Brawn, S.A. Simpson, T.L. Esker, R.W. Jansen, J.W. Walk, E.L.

Kershner, J.L. Bouzat, and K.N. Paige. 1998. Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population. Science 282: 1695.

creationist ones: one article. two article. Ungtss 18:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

<<The mutant will be born very different from its parents, although possibly not yet reproductively isolated from its parental species.>>

In my opinion, that implies that there is a normal-sized gene pool surrounding the mutant that would include all of the "parental species" that survive in the niche.  :) Would you agree? We can see the equivalent phenomenon occur repeatedly in our lifetime--in bacteria that mutate to become immune to antibiotics. Bacteria also reproduce within a gene pool, you know. And once the three billion year activities of bacterial random experiments with variations on tested and proven snippets of DNA code produce a mutation that is immune to antibiotics, that mutation quickly diffuses through the gene pool of the surviving bacteria--without ever a deleterious shrinkage of the bacterial gene pool. Again, I say, where is the article :)) that states that punctuated equilibrium ever is associated with a deleterious shrinkage of the gene pool? ---Rednblu | Talk 19:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

your analogy to the bacteria is flawed, i'm afraid, as that is MICROevolution and gradualism, but punctuated equilibrium relates only to macrochanges. everybody knows that microchanges diffuse in a broad gene pool, but under punk eek, the SUBSTANTIAL changes require an isolated gene pool. that's what the origins article says, and that's what the full other article says, too -- they may not be totally isolated to begin with, but they BECOME isolated within a few generations, creating the "daughter species," in a new and isolated gene pool. i'm afraid that IS the article:). Ungtss 20:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

just to clarify, from the intro to the second article:

Punctuated equilibrium is a model of speciation as uncoupled from selection. Speciation is initiated by a radical mutation, probably affecting the organism's early development. If the mutants can survive and reproduce long enough to adapt to their environment, they are likely to be reproductively isolated from the parent species (they are more likely to make it this far if they are geographically isolated from the parent). Alternatively, hybridization between species may result in offspring with disrupted canalization, otherwise like the radical mutants of the original theory. The result is that new species appear suddenly and change relatively little otherwise. This pattern is the usual one observed in the fossil record.

so just to clarify, under punctuated equilibrium, the big changes happen in an isolated gene pool by DEFINITION -- either full or partial, but isolated by definition. Ungtss 20:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Nope. In punctuated equilibrium, there is always a substantial gene pool surrounding the mutant. I suggest you read the article for what it is saying. It is not saying that the mutants are some Adam and Eve that inbreed. The mutant in punctuated equilibrium is always surrounded by a substantial gene pool. That substantial gene pool and the mutant may become separated from the whole universe of the parent species--such as on the Galapagos Islands. But even on the Galapagos Islands, there is a substantial gene pool surrounding the mutant. You had better interpret the article for what it is saying. :)) How about citing to an actual publication that gives an example of punctuated equilibrium that consists of your Adam and his harem.  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hmmm ... i must be reading differently somehow, and i appreciate your help in understanding it properly:).

1) is it not saying that in order for the development to take place, the daughter species must be reproductively isolated from the main one to one degree or another? Ungtss 23:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. Punctuated equilibrium is merely a special case of microevolution where something extraordinary or catastrophic occurs. If there is some special advantage that the mutant has, such as immunity to a debilitating disease, the immunity gene in maybe ten generations could diffuse to the entire living gene pool without there being reproductive isolation. But if there is reproductive isolation of two big gene pools, there will be speciation in the two gene pools, one of which will remain sickly while the other has immunity--until the next infection comes along. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• alright that explains the difference. that's not how i've heard macro described at all -- my bio profs described as a fundamentally different mechanism. what you describe IS just a special case of micro ... and is subject to the same objections as gradualism ... like, "yes, i know that german shepherds and collies are related, but where are the hairy-lizards?" Ungtss 01:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• If you look at the punctuated equilibrium page, don't you get the idea that punctuated equilibrium is just a special case of microevolution? As far as I know, Gould did not propose a particular mechanism for punctuated equilibrium. In my opinion, he merely pointed to several patterns that are observed. For example, suddenly 500 million years ago, there was an explosion of multi-celled animals and plants. Well suddenly means over a period of 30 million years. In my view, anything that happens over a period of 30 million years is gradual. But anything happening over a period of 30 million years is certainly a sudden punctuation compared with the 2 billion years of only single celled plants and animals that preceded it. ---Rednblu | Talk 09:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• i get the feeling it's been redefined that way ... but i don't think that's what he said. he's been widely described as "non-darwinian," or as "variation uncoupled from selection." they constantly talk about isolated populations causing the variation rate to accelerate ... is it possible it's been redefined as a special case of micro because what he actually said made absolutely no sense? Ungtss 19:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2) isn't the point that the new mutations DON'T diffuse back into the main body of the species, because it is isolated -- instead the new species branches off independently?

• If the new advantageous mutations diffuse back into the main body of the species, there will be no splitting into two species, one with the advantage and the other without--because the advantageous mutation will quickly diffuse and dominate the gene pool. But if there is no diffusion back into the main body, there could be speciation if the survival pressures are great; one big gene pool will continue evolving without the mutation and the other gene pool will continue evolving with the mutation. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• okay ... i'm withya ... but same objection. it's just a special case of gradualism ... nothing special. Ungtss 01:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• But there is something special about punctuated equilibrium--because it looks for microevolutionary mechanisms that make possible a whole host of further advances. The evolution of cell differentiation from one set of genes, for example, appears in yeast as three different cell types. But then once you have a cell differentiation set of functions, then just random combinations of those cell differentiation set of functions can give you the whole host of multi-celled plants with cells differentiated by bark, roots, leaves, flowers, buds, and seeds. ---Rednblu | Talk 09:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• but it still leaves the big question -- those mechanisms that enabled a whole host of other changes had to COME from somewhere ... you're just saying we got to that new plateau in one really lucky step, and then were able to do a lot of micro up there -- and i don't think that's what PE was. i'm wondering how we reached those new plateaus. Ungtss 19:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3) in the "mutation" model -- where an individual undergoes a substantial mutation that isolates him genetically, isn't that gonna require another to undergo the same mutation to get it on?

• Nope. Punctuated equilibrium is never about the mutant Adam and mutant Eve that inbreed. In punctuated equilibrium there is always a substantial gene pool around the mutant. If some mutant is so far advanced that he cannot get it on, then that is a fatal mutation from which there will be no children that have children. Furthermore, if the mutant is trapped on a desert island with only two females, he may have a very happy life, but his children will suffer the deleterious effects of inbreeding. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• okay ... i'll take your word for it:). Ungtss 01:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I will send you the DVD of it.  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 09:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

lol:). Ungtss 19:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4) in the "geographically isolated model," aren't we just saying that a small group goes off by itself and changes really quickly because it's isolated?

• No. If there is no "geographical separation," then there is no speciation because the whole population evolves together. But if there is "geographical separation," there can be speciation if the two different environments present very different survival pressures. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

confused ... Ungtss 23:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Good joke. :))) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay ... if what you say is actually what PE is, then i don't see why it was groundshaking at all. it's just old-school evolution ... and leaves us with the same question: "yes, they evolved in different directions when one population mutated and the other didn't ... but HOW did they make those JUMPS!?" could you help me out with why it's different than ordinary evolution? Ungtss 01:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I have enjoyed working through all these details again. There are a lot of new articles. I looked especially for anything on speciation in small populations--to see how small is small. I found an article that studied a daughter colony of a few hundred coral-dwelling goby fishes that are surrounded by the parent species. The daughter colony speciated from the parent species around 500,000 years ago--measured by DNA comparisons. The authors noted that the daughter species has become reproductively isolated from the parent species even though there is no geographic isolation. So the speciation was presumably by sympatry with the overlapping range rather than allopatry with the geographic isolation. The authors noted that the daughter species was limited to a several hundred square kilometer area totally within the range of the parent species. Furthermore, the daughter species lived only in one species of coral, A. caroliniana, that also was limited to the same several hundred square kilometer area. Since there was severe competition for coral to live in, the authors hypothesized that a few goby larvae were crowded out of their preferred coral and expanded to live in a non-preferred coral, the A. caroliniana. The parent species have fewer children that have children if they spawn on the A. caroliniana rather than on their home coral. And the daughter species have fewer children that have children if they spawn on the parent species's home coral. So the authors hypothesize that reproductive success would have selected out the individuals that could spawn equally poorly on both corals. And as a result the daughter species has the A. caroliniana niche all to itself.  :)) (Munday, Philip L., Lynne van Herwerden, and Christine L. Dudgeon. 2004. "Evidence for sympatric speciation by host shift in the sea." Current Biology 14 (16), pp. 1498-1504.) ---Rednblu | Talk 09:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• but all that's giving me is micro:) ... how did they get GILLS? Ungtss 19:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• That is fine. I do not pretend I have demonstrated "getting gills." I have only demonstrated punctuated equilibrium and the associated mutations resulting in speciation through reproductive isolation even though there was no geographical isolation. And at all times there was a gene pool of several hundred individuals. From the comparison of daughter species DNA to parent species DNA, you can measure how large the gene pool was that passed to the daughter species. So would you please qualify that offending paragraph to note that all observed punctuated equilibrium events have involved a gene pool of at least several hundred individuals?  :))) Pretty please?  :) Mother may I?  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• alright:) -- i'm withya:). punctuated equilibrium has been demonstrated to cause SPECIATION, but not necessarily macroevolution:). i'll buy that, and i'll qualify the paragraph:). Ungtss 21:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hume

it seems that hume died before paley wrote his book ... so i've got paley responding to hume, as requested:). Ungtss 20:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps Paley should've read him then! Dunc|☺ 21:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

lol:). maybe he wasn't convinced:) Ungtss 21:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

incorporating gosse

"some creationists later incorporated some of his arguments."

which ones? Ungtss 19:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mostly YECs, generally used as a last resort argument if their pseudoscience fails, e.g. on the supposed decay of the speed of light, it must have come from somewhere, it must be a trick by God to weed out the evilutionists. Sometimes the Devil is invoked to explain the observations instead. Dunc|☺ 22:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i've never heard that before. quote me a YEC saying God made the world look old to weed out devil-people. Ungtss 23:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH220.html cites Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Arkansas: Master Books, pp. 209-210. Dunc|☺ 10:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Morris does not say that "God made the world look old to weed out devil-people"/"evilutionists(sic)", and neither does Talk.Origins claim that.

It is true, however, that creationists have claimed and do claim some things that may be similar to Gosse's claims, but whether they inherited them from Gosse or actually use his arguments is debatable. Morris does point out (correctly) that God created the world mature, e.g. he created Adam and Eve as adults, not single-celled embryos, and does suggest that this might apply to starlight as well. However creationists these days generally reject this argument for light, as the light is not "plain" light, but incorporates images of events that, under this explanation, never happened, thus making God a deceiver. Consistent with this, Morris points out in the passage referred to that the explanation can not explain the existence of fossils, contrary to Gosse who claimed that fossils were part of this "appearance of age". Philip J. Rayment 15:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Orthogenesis

Orthogenesis is part of Lamarckism; it is the differential needed. Thus it is covered in the eclipse of Darwinism, but further elaboration is not required, and Ugtgss's edits are in disagreement with orthogenesis. Dunc|☺ 22:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

two totally different differentials. lamarckism held that traits were passed on "as needed." orthogenesis held they were developed "as God planned." Ungtss 22:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

in which case the orthogenesisarticle is wrong, and the mentions of special creation by Darwin's contemporaries is more appropriate than you pushing your own ideas about macroevolution. Dunc|☺ 22:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Orthogenesis shows neo-lamarckism as separate from ortho, and classic lamarckism as a type of ortho, among others. nowhere does it say that ortho is part of lamarckism.Ungtss 23:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

YECism is a reaction against science, and although the science of that day was wrong, there is no need to go into details. The YECs would have reacted against anything. Dunc|☺ 10:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rubbish. (1) Creationists have repeatedly pointed out that they are not against science. (2) Many creationists are scientists. Your comment is nothing more than ignorant, anti-creationary rhetoric with no substance. Philip J. Rayment 15:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

may i suggest that your reluctance to mention the 50 years during which darwinism was considered irrelevent by the scientific community and God was cited as the driving force behind the ever elusive "macroevolution" is inspired by your fear that people will discover that God and Science are not mutually exclusive? Ungtss 17:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Irate

What are you doing? why are you removing factual information without justification? Ungtss 16:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What factual information have I removed? The Gensis stories have a hearitage far further back the genisis. The unqualified facts about minor organisations isn't relivant either. Linking NZ organistions to others around the world without any clue to their realtive popularity and total suporters. One kiwi ex-pat with a web site doesn't qualift.--Jirate 17:53, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

1) show me solid evidence of the heritage of the stories before genesis.

No problem, TOLEDOTH [4] for a start.

there's no evidence there that there were actually other documents, or what those documents were. they look at the document, set up criteria for what "couldn't have come from the same document," and hypothesize documents. i could do the same thing with any book written today, and find a dozen authors. i'm talking about real, substantive, tangible evidence. Ungtss 18:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no tangible evidence eitherway in that case. [5]. Only a claim.--Jirate 18:27, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

the only tangible evidence we have, right now, is three major world religions all base their creationism on genesis. if we had evidence of something coming before, we could trace it to that. but we don't. we don't have ANY evidence of where genesis came from -- or even of who wrote it. that's why, scientifically, it's most traceable to genesis. what do you think? Ungtss 18:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Three claim to be based it on a document, that is the literal word of god and is called genesis, and all of them are different, to some extent or another.--Jirate 18:41, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

i agree with you almost totally, except, i don't believe it's the literal word of God. to believe something is historical is different than believing it's inerrant, and a lot of people of all religions believe the texts are historical, but not inerrant. Ungtss 18:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2) if you want to qualify the popularity, do that. don't erase reference. Ungtss 17:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did but it was removed. "Though at least in the UK it is a very minor organisation and concept."

that's pov tho ... how about some numbers or some cited source? Ungtss 18:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't find any sources to cite on numbers in the UK.

if you can, let's stick 'em in. tell then, let's leave it as is. Ungtss 18:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I tink at the moment the represent an atempt to make a minority view seem more wide spread, and as such should be removed.--Jirate 18:41, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

alright, i'll add a more subtle qualifier. Ungtss 18:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

As I originally reverted Irate, I'll add my comments, even though much of it has already been covered by Ungtss. The original introductory wording didn't say that Genesis was original, just that Genesis is where Christians and others get the story from. Many people don't agree that Genesis was derived from other sources, so putting that is was is POV.

I removed the reference to AiG in the UK being "a very minor organisation and concept" because (a) it is an organisation, not a 'concept', and (b) I didn't think that it being minor in the UK was relevant. AiG itself is not a minor organisation, it being one of the largest, if not the largest, creationist organisations in the world. I believe that the statement said more about AiG as an international organisation than it did about its size in each of those countries.

Philip J. Rayment 01:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Being world famous in your home town, isn't the same as being world famous.--Jirate 02:22, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Introduction as at 13th December 2004

The introduction currently says:

Up until the early 20th century, most Europeans, Americans, Jews, and Muslims believed that a supreme being had existed and would exist eternally, and that everything else in existance had been created by this supreme being, known variously as God, Yahweh, or Allah. This belief was based on the authority of Genesis and the Qu'ran, which were held to be historically accurate. As a result, no systematic inquiry was made into the historical validity of the history reported in the text. With the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, a variety of scientific and philosophical movements challenged the traditional viewpoint in Europe and the Americas. As a result, Creationism arose as a distinct movement in an effort to justify and reassert the historical accuracy of the recorded events, particularly those recorded in Genesis.

First, I reckon the previous wording was cleaner and better.

The bit about no systematic enquiry I don't think is fair. It effectively says that no systematic enquiry was done because everybody accepted it, rather, as I suspect is the case, that in those days no systematic enquiry was done on any historical accounts. And whilst it is true that subsequently various movements did challenge the accepted viewpoint, that was, on the whole at least, not until after the rise of science and many scientists did investigate creation as scientifically as they were able. In other words, the paragraph as it stands gives the impression that no-one questioned creation until science etc. came along and did so, rather than saying that nobody questioned it because nobody questioned history in those days, and questioning it was not a result of the rise of science but subsequent to that.

And lastly, it could be read as saying that as well as Muslims, (Christian) Europeans and Americans, and Jews, based their views on Genesis and the Qu'ran.

What do others think?

Philip J. Rayment 01:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyone capable of systematic reasoning at the time would probably have also realised that a bit of ground work needed to be done before moving on to the big questions.--Jirate 02:19, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

---

I agree that the previous shorter lead section was clearer. The current lead section make me think that the page is about how long God is going to live. :)) Where is the "creationism"? It kind of flashes by as if it is just a roadsign that blips by as I am looking at the awesome scenery of how long God lived. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 05:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)