text:
Talk:Creation biology/Archive 6

psst
hey -- would the person who got this page protected please make some real substantive and specific suggestions for improving the text so we can move on? schroeder's policy of removing cited and attributed summaries of texts without any effort to edit them is quite frustrating ... but the policy of requesting protection and disappearing is even more frustrating. Ungtss 19:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * almost 24 hours now without any comment from joshuaschroeder, supposedly so concerned with resolving the edit wars he's been manufacturing ... if any admins are around, would you be so kind as to unprotect this page so productive editing can continue? Ungtss 03:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd vote 'no' on that one. There's any number of open points that JS and I have asked you to address on this talk page, and you've either ignored or pretty off-handedly dismissed.  (And if you're at a loose end, there's still that restructuring of theistic realism...)  If you have a re-draft of the contentious section, I'd be glad to comment on or edit it at a sub-page someplace.  If you just want to do another revert -- well, isn't that why it got protected in the first place?  Alai 04:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * every time you or schroeder put up a comment, i changed the section in an effort to accomodate it as best i was able. i didn't get any edits from either of you.  the section as it was last deleted wholesale is significantly different than when it first went up.  please, feel free to propose whatever changes you would think are appropriate ... i don't understand why deletion is preferable to alteration.  as to theistic realism ... i thought i had already addressed your concerns as best i could ... what else are you looking for?  Ungtss 04:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying deletion or protection was necessarily the best way to go, but I can certainly understand JS's motivations or feelings in doing so. Some additions add POV in such a way that simply 'adding opposite POV' doth not NPOV make -- or indeed, a good article.  Alai 01:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

36 hours
36 hours without comment from joshua "truth, light, and tolerance" schroeder. having protected the page on his preferred version, he seems to have found a way to prevent anyone else from ever changing the article. if there's an admin paying attention here ... will you please unprotect this page since mr. schroeder obviously lost interest in editing this page after he forced it into his preferred mold? Ungtss 18:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think 'ever' is being remarkably over-hasty. If it's any comfort, there's lots of remaining CB POV therein...  Alai 18:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * something i'd love to work with you in fixing (since you clearly put npov before your own pov, an attitude which i greatly appreciate), as soon as we have access to the page again. protection is designed to facilitate the negotiation and resolution and edit wars.  schroeder protected and ran.  where's the edit war?  how can we fix the pov unless we're allowed access to the page?  Ungtss 18:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protected page
I think the basic problem is that we don't have a clear way of formulating the page. What I think we need is the following:

1) A description of classical YEC creationist biological opinions. For example taking Flood Geology and the idea of kinds and expanding on them.

2) A descriptiong of the ID specified complexity and irreducible complexity arguments (from Behe and Dembski, mostly) that are somewhat separate from the whole AiG enterprise. In particular, I think this distinction needs to be made because there isn't a united "creation biology" front right now.

3) We need to describe the ideas but not go into the POV justifications for them. This is where Ungtss will probably cry foul, but it's really the only thing that can be done. What I would like to see is a description that plainly states the differences between CB and EB and then we can work from there. I don't want to see these controversial examples of "eyes" and "ligers" for example because they don't really work as actual examples but look like shoddy justifications. Furthermore they are unnecessary from simply describing the situation.

Joshuaschroeder 21:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

welcome back. as you anticipated, the first two are fine with me, but the last is absolutely unacceptable. you described the reasoning behind the ideas as "pov justifications." there's no basis for calling it that. it's called REASONING. and this article will be absolutely and unacceptably incomplete without the REASONING for the creationist ideas. your alternative is (as it has been on every other creationist page you've vandalized) to delete the reasoning, and leave only empty conclusions and caricatures, or ultimately to delete the page entirely. whether YOU think the reasoning is GOOD or not is YOUR pov. describing the reasoning itself is the only thing that could possibly BE npov.

if the reasoning is BAD, then show why it's BAD. but you have absolutely no justification for deliberately and systematically censoring creationist ideas, and your campaign of bullying will not succeed. i was here before you came, and i'll be here after you leave. this is CREATION BIOLOGY. it WILL describe the topic it's about fairly, accurately, and in npov style. Ungtss 22:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think Josh's idea is basically sound. We can describe CB ideas, and state why CBs think they're a good idea, but lengthy examples, particularly ones based on unclear analogy are a bad model. This isn't a CB textbook. Nor is it a debate (well, maybe it is, but the article ought not to be), so 'show why it's bad' is a bad approach -- is is your trying to show how good it is in the first place. We include links for exactly this sort of thing. Alai 01:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * as long as we, as you said, "state we CBs think it's a good idea," i think we're good to go. then it's just a question of length and quality of explanation.  how would you suggest we "explain why CB's think this is a good idea" in terms other than those used and cited in the section?  Ungtss 04:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposal
Let's take the introduction and the first section as the model for the article. Let's take each of the bulleted points in the first section and make them their own sections. These are the real CB ideas and they can be fleshed-out as such. That way we can deal with each one point-by-point instead of the mishmash that's going on right now. Joshuaschroeder 21:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * sounds good. present your proposal so i can okay it and we can get this page unprotected.  Ungtss 23:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

information
perhaps this will help us better define creationist views on information, from Harun Yahya's Islamic Creationist books, Darwinism Refuted. .

The Difference between Matter and Information

We earlier mentioned that there is incredibly comprehensive information contained in the DNA of living things. Something as small as a hundred thousandth of a millimeter across contains a sort of "data bank" that specifies all the physical details of the body of a living thing. Moreover, the body also contains a system that reads this information, interprets it and carries out "production" in line with it. In all living cells, the information in the DNA is "read" by various enzymes, and proteins are produced. This system makes possible the production of millions of proteins every second, of just the required type for just the places where they are needed in our bodies. In this way, dead eye cells are replaced by living ones, and old blood cells by new ones. At this point, let us consider the claim of materialism: Is it possible that the information in DNA could be reduced to matter, as materialists suggest? Or, in other words, can it be accepted that DNA is merely a collection of matter, and the information it contains came about as a result of the random interactions of such pieces of matter? All the scientific research, experiments and observations carried out in the twentieth century show that the answer to this question is a definite "No." The director of the German Federal Physics and Technology Institute, Prof. Werner Gitt, has this to say on the issue: A coding system always entails a nonmaterial intellectual process. A physical matter cannot produce an information code. All experiences show that every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind.... There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter...385 Werner Gitt's words summarize the conclusions of "information theory," which has been developed in the last 50 years, and which is accepted as a part of thermodynamics. Information theory investigates the origin and nature of the information in the universe. The conclusion reached by information theoreticians as a result of long studies is that "Information is something different from matter. It can never be reduced to matter. The origin of information and physical matter must be investigated separately." For instance, let us think of the source of a book. A book consists of paper, ink, and the information it contains. Paper and ink are material elements. Their source is again matter: Paper is made of cellulose, and ink of various chemicals. However, the information in the book is nonmaterial, and cannot have a material source. The source of the information in each book is the mind of the person who wrote it. Moreover, this mind determines how the paper and ink will be used. A book initially forms in the mind of the writer. The writer builds a chain of logic in his mind, and orders his sentences. As a second step, he puts them into material form, which is to say that he translates the information in his mind into letters, using a pen, a typewriter or a computer. Later, these letters are printed in a publishing house, and take the shape of a book made up of paper and ink. We can therefore state this general conclusion: If physical matter contains information, then that matter must have been designed by a mind that possessed the information in question. First there is the mind. That mind translates the information it possesses into matter, which constitutes the act of design.

The Origin of the Information in Nature

When we apply this scientific definition of information to nature, a very important result ensues. This is because nature overflows with an immense body of information (as, for example, in the case of DNA), and since this information cannot be reduced to matter, it therefore comes from a source beyond matter. One of the foremost advocates of the theory of evolution, George C. Williams, admits this reality, which most materialists and evolutionists are reluctant to see. Williams has strongly defended materialism for years, but in an article he wrote in 1995, he states the incorrectness of the materialist (reductionist) approach which holds that everything is matter: Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter… These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism." …The gene is a package of information, not an object... In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality... This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.386 Therefore, contrary to the supposition of materialists, the source of the information in nature cannot be matter itself. The source of information is not matter but a superior Wisdom beyond matter. This Wisdom existed prior to matter. The possessor of this Wisdom is God, the Lord of all the Worlds. Matter was brought into existence, given form, and organized by Him.

 * Thanks for the quote. Unfortunately, I see a lot of assertion, and not much in the way of definition.  It's something separate from matter, QED.  Essentially our problem seems to be this:  CBs say information only increase when it's "useful information", EBs would say (AFAIK) that "information" would be the size of the genome, and that "fitness" is its utility, and the two are separate.  (Or something like that, have to double-check the terminology EBs do in fact use.) Alai 18:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * you're absolutely right -- i don't think that creationists have a quantifiable definition of information -- just intuition, and analogy. i like the way you described the distinction -- the creationist definition of information, as far as i've seen, COMBINES the kolgorov definition of information with the CONTENT (i.e. fitness) of the information.  so whereas within the evolutionist definition, 10 random characters would have the same amount of information as "I love you," within the creationist definition, the random characters contain no information at all, but the phrase contains information, which, tho unquantifiable, is identifiable.  what do you think?  Ungtss 19:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, so assuming we're both not talking out of our hats, what we'd need to flesh this out would be 'notables' on either side saying something to this effect, ideally in reference to each other's position (however well- or ill-manneredly...) in some respect. I'll do some digging, but it may not be until tomorrow.  (Care to weigh in here, JS?)  Alai 20:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * sounds good:). Ungtss 20:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * how about a brief take on dembski's specied complexity -- i think he's defined it better than these other folks. will this help?    Ungtss 20:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposal II
As such, creationists have proposed several ideas:

Biogenesis, that is, the idea that life can only come from life, and cannot arise spontaneously from non-life. This runs contrary to naturalistic theories of abiogenesis as the Origin of life. Teleology, that is, the idea that God designed life with intricate and interconnected components for a purpose, and then determined that they were "Good." This runs contrary to philosophical naturalism, or the idea that natural phenomena are the result of chance and natural law, and contrary to the idea of the Selfish gene, that is, the idea that the complexity and beauty of life is merely the result of the replication, variation, and selection of DNA. Created kinds, that is, the idea that life was originally created in a finite number of discrete forms, and that while these kinds had the ability to vary significantly within their kind, one kind cannot interbreed with another kind, and new kinds cannot arise spontaneously. This runs contrary to the theory of universal common ancestry, that is, that all life on the planet is related via macroevolution. Irreducible complexity, that is, the idea that many components of life are composed of interdependent parts in which the absence of one part would cause the entire system to fail, making it extremely unreasonable to believe that they came about one component at a time as held by evolution, and much more reasonable to believe they were designed and assembled together, for a purpose. This runs contrary to the idea that all biological mechanisms are merely the result of slow evolutionary processes, one mutation at a time. Specified complexity, that is, the idea that genetic information is both complex and specified, and that such information cannot increase through random functions, but only through the intervention of an intelligent designer. This runs contrary to the idea that all biological mechanisms are the result of slow evolutionary processes, one mutation at a time.

So we have 5 sections. We can use Dembski's ideas and critiques thereof in the final section. Most of the kinds can go in the "created kinds" section. Joshuaschroeder 23:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * isn't that basically what we've already got, word for word? what are you proposing, exactly?  Ungtss 23:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * schroeder, your last two posts were cut and paste, with no material. it's been almost 3 days now -- how long do you think it's appropriate to allow the page to stay protected while you sit around and say nothing that would allow us to move toward a resolution of your manufactured "edit war?"  it makes me suspicious you just want to keep the page protected to prevent any further editing ... so that your preferred version will win by default.  am i wrong?  Ungtss 05:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proposal III
Above is my outline. It is a major difference from the current article. Please add in appropriate information or post your comments/objections here. Joshuaschroeder 17:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * don't pretend it's a change. it's not a change at all.  it's virtually identical to the article now, and certainly no reason for protection.  the order should start with created kinds, then information, then teleology, then biogenesis.  other than that, your proposal (and the article as it stands, which are virtually identical) are good.  however, if you think this "proposal" will permit you to delete the created kinds section as it is, you're kidding yourself.  how long will you continue to hijack the article?  why don't you just put it up for VfD and be done with it?  Ungtss 17:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adding to the article
I've now incorportated the sections on kinds (or baraminology) into the appropriate section above. There was a lot of repeated information that I deleted. Please edit and add comments. We'll need to write at least stub sections for the other groups before we proceed with editting the page. Ultimately, I think this format is going to work much better in terms of simply presenting creationist arguments and their implications. Joshuaschroeder 23:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kinds or Baraminology?
I'd like to see if anybody would mind changing the "kinds" to "baramins" as described in the following citations: and  and

why are we starting from scratch?
schroeder: start with the status quo. you're trying to rebuild the page ex nihilo for no reason. the page is good as is. why must it be rewritten from scratch? Ungtss 01:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the page is good as it is. I have changed the below to the proposal that I had above.
 * i see. so wikipedia articles are written by unilaterally scrapping the version developed over a few weeks instead of refining and developing them according to consensus?  Ungtss 01:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ungtss, it's a proposal, not a "unilateral scrapping". You've more than once invited people to "fix POV issues", and this is JS's attempt to do so.  Do you have any specific suggestions, objections, or counter-proposals to the suggested text?  (BTW, would it be convenient to move the proposal to a sub-page?)   Alai 02:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it's a proposal for a unilateral scrapping. why is the burden on the status quo to justify changes to his new and stripped down version, rather than on him to justify his changes from the status quo?  Ungtss 02:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting the 'burden' is on either of you, that's your construction. It looks to me that the gist of JS's proposal is restructring, not 'content reduction'.  Content can be added (back) in, if there's some agreement on structure.  What specifically is 'stripped out' that you want to see in?  If we can move the two texts closer together, then there's less of a chance of a flip-flop edit war when page-protection is removed.  But that seems unlikely to happen if you refuse to even discuss any counter-proposals.   Alai 02:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with his restructuring proposal. that's fine.  but all of the reasoning has been stripped out of the texts in his new version.  that's not fine.  if he wants to change the header names, that's fine.  but why is he taking all the reasoning out of the text itself, and then placing the burden on me to put it back in?  if he wants to substantially alter the text, he needs to justify it.  Ungtss 02:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article as envisioned by Joshuaschroeder
Moved to Talk:Creation_biology/temp -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creation biology
Creation biology is an attempt to study biology from a creationary perspective. According to its proponents, it is a synthesis of science and religion, as it attempts to draw from both sources in developing its ideas.

Creation biology is based on the idea that God created all life on the planet as described in the Genesis account of Creation, in a finite number of discrete created kinds or baramin. Creation biologists assert that while these forms of life were given the ability to vary a great deal and even undergo speciation, these kinds cannot arise spontaneously, cannot interbreed, and cannot increase in complexity.

As such, creation biology differs from mainstream biology mainly in its rejection of macroevolution and universal common descent. Since creation biology is concerned almost exclusively with the origins of living things, creation biologists accept much of mainstream biology with regard to physiology, the structure of the cell, the genomic basis of life, microevolution, and speciation.

Creation organizations advocating a number of ideas ranging from Young Earth Creationism to Intelligent Design have proposed a number of ideas, which differ significantly from evolutionary biology.

 * Biogenesis, that is, the idea that life can only come from life, and cannot arise from non-life. This runs contrary to naturalistic theories of abiogenesis.
 * Teleology, that is, the idea that God designed life with intricate and interconnected components for a purpose, and then determined that they were "good." This runs contrary to the empirical model of modern science which claims that there is no empirically observed instance of supernatural influences in nature..
 * Created kinds or Baraminology, that is, the idea that life was originally created in a finite number of discrete "kinds" or "baramin", and that while these kinds had the ability to vary significantly within their kind, one kind cannot interbreed with another kind, and new kinds cannot arise spontaneously. This runs contrary to the theory of universal common ancestry, that is, that all life on the planet is related via macroevolution.
 * Irreducible complexity, that is, the claim made by Michael Behe that there exists systems in life that are composed of interdependent components where the absence of one would cause the entire system to fail. Creation biologists claim that these systems are essentially interdependent, and it is therefore more reasonable to believe they were designed and assembled together for a purpose. They also claim that the theory of biological evolution cannot convincingly explain how these parts evolved as part of a viable living system.
 * Specified complexity, that is, the claim made by William Dembski that genetic information is "complex specified information" (CSI), that natural processes can reduce and change CSI, but can never increase it, and that it is therefore more reasonable to infer that such information was created through the intervention of an intelligent designer rather than being the sole product of evolutionary processes. This runs contrary to the idea that all biological features are the result of evolution.

then we can develop the issues on greater detail on the pages specifically on topic. what do you think? Ungtss 04:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * but this proposal does not define the term Creation biology at all. It just refer you to other pages. --LexCorp 04:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * my bad. i inserted stuff from the page as it is.  how's this?  Ungtss 04:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Also hits one of my 'POV neologism' bugbears: 'creationary'.  Can we at least work up to introducing such term, rather than having them in the first sentence?  Alai 05:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * neologism killed:). Ungtss 05:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Th'art kind. Alai 05:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I just don't get it. How can they agree on genetic evidence and finds and not agree on the tree of life that nowadays it is mainly derived from genetic evidence? --LexCorp 05:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * as far as i know, agreement on the nature, structure, and function of genetics, but a rejection of inferences of RELATIONSHIP which are drawn from genetics, where those inferences of relationship are seen to be excessively tenuous. Ungtss 05:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But just to be clear: on what basis are they seen as being too tenuous?  Genetic criteria per se?  Prior assumption/scriptural evidence?  Intuition?  Alai 05:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, then that should be made clearer in the article because to me that is not the same for mainstream biology. Consider,

 * Creation biology is almost identical to mainstream biology with respect to the observable physiology and function of living organisms today; for instance, the structure of the cell, taxonomy, and genetics. It acknowledges microevolution and speciation as observable phenomena. Creation biology differs from mainstream biology only with regard to the origin of living things, the global tree of life and that it rejects inferences of biological relationships between living organisms which are drawn from genetic evidence.

 * --LexCorp 05:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

good edit -- just added "where those relationships are perceived to be excessively tenuous." and stuck it on the draft. nice working with you:). Ungtss 06:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * edited. greatly instead of a great deal. --LexCorp 06:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * edited. Taken the two instances " one mutation at a time." away. there are other processes at work too like sexual reproduction and so for. --LexCorp 06:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<''But just to be clear: on what basis are they seen as being too tenuous? Genetic criteria per se? Prior assumption/scriptural evidence? Intuition?''>>
 * edited -- added the only criteria i'm aware of: evidence of reproductive compatibility. Ungtss 06:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * But... we've been precisely here before.  Why isn't genetic similarity evidence of past reproductive compatibility, and common origin?  Alai 06:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * hmm ... let's think of reproductive compatibility in a more narrow sense -- in the sense of, "do we have reason to believe these two animals could have bred in the recent past?" this means, no matter how similar our dna is to dolphins (and the vast majority of it is identical), we're not related, because putting the egg and the sperm together there just won't ever work.  Ungtss 06:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, that's a much better defined concept, yes. (One worth posing of housecats and jaguars, too...)  But why is it reason to reject genetic similarity?  Or, are you just characterising the ones which are thusly rejected?  (In which case, this is fair enough if this is clear.)  Alai 06:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * for the moment, i think the latter is the best we have. to speculate on the former, i'd say, "certain types of genetic similarity can give evidence of reproductive compatibility -- but not all types.  for instance, an identical sequence for the eye is irrelevent for reproductive compatibility.  only similarities relating to reproduction are relevent in that regard.  closer?  (excellent working with you, by the way:).  Ungtss 06:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, that is happening as we speak. In Cesare Emiliani's Planet Earth : Cosmology, Geology, & the Evolution of Life & the Environment (Paperback Edition ISBN 0521409497) he described a series of close related species that reproduce circulary in one direction but not in the other. (The group escapes me at the moment but maybe they where polyps). So specie A could breed with B, B with C, C with D and D with A. But D could not with B and so on. --LexCorp 06:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * VERY interesting. i'll have to look that up:).  Ungtss 06:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I book capable of converting a creationist by the way so DO read it. Meanwhile it leaves the comment "where there is no evidence of reproductive compatibility" as not factual as there is clearly direct evidence and not just infered. --LexCorp 06:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'll do that:). Ungtss 07:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edited. Removed ", and particularly where there is no evidence of reproductive compatibility." from the short version article template as per above talk. --LexCorp 16:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Statement of Conformity. I state that I am happy as the short version article stands now. I would like to declare that Joshuaschroeder has not yet agreed to the concept of a short version article and for my part should not feel pressured to do so if he has reservations about it. Awaiting opinions of the rest of editors and if a reasonable consensus exist, particularly between Joshuaschroeder and Ungtss both originators of the dispute, then we can make a collective request to remove the protection. --LexCorp 17:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I have altered it to conform to an edit I am more pleased with (it has tighter language and seems to be less POV than the one up previously). Anyone object to my edit? Joshuaschroeder 21:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

schroeder, why is your "short version:"

 * <>

better than the "real version:"

 * <<Creation biology is an attempt to study biology from a creationist perspective. According to its proponents, it is a synthesis of science and religion, as it attempts to draw from both sources in developing its ideas. Creation biology is almost identical to mainstream biology with respect to the observable physiology and function of living organisms today; for instance, the structure of the cell, taxonomy, and genetics. It acknowledges microevolution and speciation as observable phenomena. Creation biology differs from mainstream biology only with regard to the origin of living things, the global tree of life, and that it rejects inferences of biological relationships between living organisms which are drawn from genetic evidence, where the evidence of those relationships is perceived to be excessively tenuous.>>

it's my contention that the "real version" qualifies and defines the topic with a SIGNIFICANTLY greater detail of accuracy, including what exactly it is, what it isn't, where it's similar to evolution, and where it's different. it's my contention that your short version is deliberately designed to make it look like a religious idea devoid of content, and utterly fails to explain what it is. why do you think your version better? Ungtss 23:07, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Ungtss I believe Joshuaschroeder made a mistake in one of his edits and deleted the following part unintentionally:

 * Creation biology is an attempt to study biology from a creationary perspective. According to its proponents, it is a synthesis of science and religion, as it attempts to draw from both sources in developing its ideas. Creation biology proponents forcus their critiques on the specific aspects of biology associated with long term evolution and common descent, but do not object to many parts of modern biology, for example physiology, the structure of the cell, and the genomic basis of life.

Lets wait until he read this and either confirms it was a mistake or gives further reason of why his version is better. --LexCorp 02:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * confirmed, thanks for the catch, Lex. Joshuaschroeder 06:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i tinkered with it a bit, placing creationist ideas first and stating them in a positive way (instead of in reaction to evolution), and giving a brief description of "kinds." what do you think?  Ungtss 13:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I am happy with it. What do others think? --LexCorp 16:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * a little more tinkering -- hope i didn't mess it up:). Ungtss 18:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you did at least from my perspective. I changed "only" to "mainly". There is no point really to constrain the definition with this kind of terms because if we do then disputes about more specific description of creation biology will arise. This way the meaning is not altered but the term is unconstrained. Also changed "indistinguishable" to "very similar" for the same. --LexCorp 20:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks for cleaning it up -- is it good now, given your edits? Ungtss 20:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Ups found somenthing else. The bit "a limited degree of speciation" is not exactly correct at least I don't see where in modern biology a limitation is set so I am going to change it to "speciation". If you don't agree then maybe it should be moved to the part where they mainly difeer. --LexCorp 20:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * good edit. i'm happy with what we've got.  any other opinions?  Ungtss 16:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I am happy with it--LexCorp 00:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

re-editted
I removed some problematic statements and reworded some things. I specifically tried to deal with "complexity" better than was done before (it was very creationist POV slanted in the previous edit). I removed a bit about genetic information from the mainstream description (which is not an apt description) and I changed the irreducible complexity and specified complexity bits somewhat to account for the fact that much of it is highly disputed. Joshuaschroeder 02:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * ok with me--LexCorp 02:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Schroeder -- please, explain why the statements are "problematic." no one else here has a problem with them. why are you deleting articulations of the reasoning behind the pov? in my opinion, your edits significantly reduce article quality.

in particular, you turned: <<''Irreducible complexity, that is, the idea that many components of life are composed of interdependent parts in which the absence of one part would cause the entire system to fail, making it extremely unreasonable to believe that they came about one component at a time as held by evolution, and much more reasonable to believe they were designed and assembled together, for a purpose. This runs contrary to the idea that all biological mechanisms are merely the result of slow evolutionary processes, one mutation at a time.''>>

into:

<<''Irreducible complexity, that is, the idea that many components of life are composed of interdependent parts in which the absence of one part would cause the entire system to fail. It is claimed by creation biologists that this implies that the components were designed and assembled together, for a purpose, rather than the result of slow evolutionary processes.''>>

All this edit did was remove the reasoning behind the argument, and leave a groundless conclusion -- one of your pet tactics, i'm afraid. why is your edit better?

 * Well, for one it makes the claim that it is "extremely unreasonable" to believe that they came about "one component at a time as held by evolution". Evolution doesn't hold that components necessarily evolved "one at a time" first of all, and any "reasonable" or "unreasonable" value-judgement should be eshewed. That is, substantively, the only thing removed. Joshuaschroeder 02:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * then can we attribute those views of ID advocates, rather than deleting them wholesale? Ungtss 02:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a question of context then. If you want to flesh out the argument for IC here, then we're going to have to get into the details and the detail criticisms here. That's why I liked my version (still saved under temp) better. If you want to avoid controversy on this page and move them to other pages, as I thought (but maybe mistakenly) we were trying to do here, then we can try to reformulate the article. Joshuaschroeder 03:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'm not asking to "get into details" with criticisms etc. i'm asking for a simple one-sentence articulation of the reasoning behind the idea, rather than an empty conclusion.  must you delete the reasoning every time it appears?  please -- lex is fine with it -- PLEASE just leave it alone so we can move on.  don't you EVER get tired of this?  Ungtss 03:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, you turned: <<''Specified complexity, that is, the idea that genetic information is both complex and specified, and that such information cannot increase through random functions, but only through the intervention of an intelligent designer. This runs contrary to the idea that all biological mechanisms are the result of slow evolutionary processes, one mutation at a time.''>>

into:

<<''Specified complexity, that is, the idea that genetic information is both complex and specified, and that such information cannot increase randomly, but only through the intervention of an intelligent designer. This runs contrary to the theory of natural selection of adaptations over time allowing for the diversity of life in the biosphere.''>>

which completely fails to explain the evolutionary mechanism, which is indeed "one mutation at a time." why is your edit better? Ungtss 02:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Evolution does not state "one mutation at a time". It just doesn't state such a thing. My edit it better because it actually characterizes the way that so-called "specified" complexity evolves via natural selection. Joshuaschroeder 02:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * then again, let's qualify this to ID advocates, rather than delete it, shall we? Ungtss 02:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * See above. Joshuaschroeder 03:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

additionally, you deleted:
 * <>
 * Why did you do that? Ungtss 02:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Because that's a creationist opinion about evolution rather than a fair characterization of evolution. It's not something mutually agreed upon. Joshuaschroeder 02:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * once again, attribute, don't delete, yes? Ungtss 02:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You want to do this in the introductory section even? Joshuaschroeder 03:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * look -- it is attributed as a creationist pov -- it is a SUMMARY of the creationist pov -- it's not a place for a full-out debate on the merits -- it's a SUMMARY of creationist views -- and increases in genetic information ARE part of the creationist views. what IS it with you?  Ungtss 03:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LETs try to find a compromise solution

consider,

 * Moved above. --LexCorp 15:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and,

 * Moved above. --LexCorp 15:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rationale: The first bit (making it extremely unreasonable to believe) was somewhat POV. I believe my edit address both of your concerns so it is Neutral POV. The second is a reasonable characterisation apart from the bit (one mutation at a time) which is not factual as there are other processes at work. What do you think?

--LexCorp 04:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * you're a master:). i'll take it:).  Ungtss 12:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Tweaked a bit. We'll see if it takes. I don't like the term "random functions" as it is ill-defined. I also don't like the insinuation that evolution is totally random. I also think direct attribution is useful. Joshuaschroeder 14:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I am happy with it. Moved the parts to the tep article. --LexCorp 15:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * tightened a bit more ... paley never made any arguments for irreducible complexity etc. Ungtss 16:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * edited for clarity. I am happy with it--LexCorp 16:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * me too. Ungtss 16:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * removed "than to believe they evolved from simpler systems" since I'm not sure what the statement proports to critique. Evolution doesn't say anything about systems only evolving from simpler systems. I would attribute it, but I don't know how. Joshuaschroeder 17:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * nobody said ONLY evolving from simpler systems; but evolution DOES say that all complex systems evolved from simpler systems at one time or another. why is this inappropriate to mention?  Ungtss 17:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I had to side here with Ungtss. It is inmaterial whatever evolution says as this is a choice of believing which reasoning is more apropiate. Creation biologist choose this, the more scientific minded people do not.So lets leave it in. OK?--LexCorp 17:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I want to see the citation for a Dembski or Behe claiming that evolution says that proponents of evolution "believe [complexity] evolved from simpler systems." I just don't think that this does justice to the nuance of the matter of first having the creation biologists make a claim about evolution (a theory they want to discredit) and then taking that claim and discrediting it. It may be a valid critique, but I'm not sure the sentence does justice to the creation biology position and it certainly doesn't do justice to the counter position. Joshuaschroeder 06:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording very slightly to try to work toward a compromise. Please edit to get to help us get to the point. Joshuaschroeder 06:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i'm happy. Ungtss 17:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm happy. Too.--LexCorp 20:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection request
Would the other editors involved in the discussion of this article visit WP:RFPP? Thank you. I would like to hear more than one voice in regards to the unprotection of this article, before the request is considered. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Emiliani
read the book ... i found it to be an EXCELLENT book, but to exhibit the same error those books always seem to make ... failing to differentiate at all between the obvious and empirical science (like his excellent descriptions of the solar system and the earth's atmosphere etc) and his completely unfalsifiable and metaphysical beliefs (such as his argument for absolute materialistic determinism (p. 371, "I hope, however, that this book will convince you that, far from being a miracle, life eis a necessary and inevitable consequence of the way the world originated and evolved. indeed, the origin and evolution of life on earth were foregone conclusions right from the befinning ...") a low view of human identity (p. 551, "Perhaps humans should recognize they are first and foremost animals...)).

between these two extremes of science and his personal religion lie an enormous number of pseudoscientific claims ("In the first 8 seconds of the big bang" ... or "The duck-billed platypus evolved X million years ago ...") which are not backed up with ANY facts are data to justify his conclusion, and are certainly not falsifiable. he resorts to sheer proof by assertion. i'm not convinced by his proof by assertion -- on the contrary, his failure to distinguish between science and religion causes me to be VERY CAUTIOUS about his proofs by assertion. in the end, he tells his history of the universe very passionately, but i'm afraid it's not convincing unless you already WANT to believe it. thanks for the tip on the book -- you've definitely educated me:). Ungtss 13:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The flaws you attribute to the book are due to the fact that the book only tries to function as a "scientific divulgation device at introductory level" and not a "scientific thesis" thus the author does not need to explain everything in complete detail nor thus he need to refer to all original work. Apart from that the book is in my opinion one of the best at introductory level. It explains everything to a depth which other introductory books fail to do under the presumption that their audience would not understand. Cesare Emiliani in that respect understands that the limit does not reside in the audience intelligence but in the ability of the communicator to convey the scientific ideas. More importantly the achieved depth in sufficient to convey to the audience the mechanism of scientific methodology in practical circumstances which to me is even more important than mere scientific knowledge and which the majority of scientific divulgation books fail to do. By the way did you find the part I was referring to? I ask because my copy is right now in a box as I am about to move house so I can't consult it. --LexCorp 16:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * <>
 * absolutely. and if evolution is indeed a relatively indisputable fact, then THIS is the reason many people continue to be creationists -- because all the "science texts" state ideas about the ancient events as CONCLUSIONS, without giving us the reasoning or evidence behind them.  why should i believe his model of the big bang?  what REASONS does he have for believing ANYTHING about the big bang?  why should i believe the platypus evolved 70-some-odd million years ago?  what REASONS does he have for doing that?  in this text, as in the others, i am given no reasons.  i am given only conclusions.  it's very similar, i think, to reading to bible.  if you WANT to believe the bible, then "the bible says so" is sufficient.  but if you DON'T want to, you ask, "well why should i believe that!?"  that's where i end up with this book.  what FACTS does he have to back this up?  What EVIDENCE does he have to back up these claims of his?  i don't get them from this book.  i get conclusions, proofs by assertion, and proofs by consensus.
 * so i'm left only with his credibility. and he blows that credibility when he says things like "the miracle would have been if life HADN'T evolved on Earth."  what grounds does he have to say that?  do we KNOW how abiogenesis happened?  do we have any IDEA how life arose?  no.  but he states, as a conclusion apparently so obvious it need not be defended, that life HAD to arise on the planet.  he loses his credibility there.  and with his credibility gone, his assertions without evidence about events of 70M years ago ring hollow to me, i'm afraid.  i'd love to know exactly why scientists are convinced of evolution, but i have yet to hear any REASONS that i find persuasive.  just proofs by assertion, which oddly always seemed accompanied by "and while you're at it, stop believing in God!" as was the case in this book:(.  Ungtss 18:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a very scientific attitude. Question everything, if you are not satisfied with a statement search for more specific literature or ultimately as scientist do go and search for the truth. What I don't understand is why the text of the bible does not apply in YEC to this kind of scepticism and is taken a priori as a statement of fact. Because for my part I do have the same feelings toward the bible you do toward this kind of science book but the difference is I do not hold either this book or any other scientific work as the ultimate truth. I just consider them as a never ending voyage toward the achievement of a better understanding of the universe and its nature. --LexCorp 18:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * <>
 * in my opinion, that attitude of blind faith in the Bible (bibliolotry if you will) is grounded in fear and ignorance, and almost singlehandedly discredits the entire creationist movement. i like to think, however, that there is a RATIONAL, if not strictly SCIENTIFIC basis for creationism at this particular juncture on our shared "never ending voyage toward the achievement of a better understanding of the universe and its nature." -- particularly, i think that creationism is defensible on its merits.  Ungtss 19:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * <>
 * sadly no! i can't say i read every single anecdote on every single page ... but i did pay attention, particularly in the "evolution section," looking for your example -- i've got the book for 6 weeks -- i'd really appreciate a page number whenever you're done moving (happy moving by the way!) Ungtss 18:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would gladly do so as soon as I relocate and get internet access --LexCorp 18:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * i look forward to it! Ungtss 19:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rekindling the fire
I'm a newcomer in this page, so I wouldn't like to start a long debate over, but... I'm less than thrilled to see that the page (as well as others in the topic of creationism) seems to use the dreaded "equal time" approach. I read that creationist ideas simply "disagree with mainstream science", or "run counter to..." etc. Keeping the NPOV but respecting the facts, I think it should be emphasized that creationist ideas are not science, they're not accepted by science, and run counter to scientific evidence — they're not just "outside mainstream science".

Also, in the interest of internationalism, I think it should be pointed out that "creation science" is mainly a United States issue. There's no organized "creation science" (though there's creationism) in Islamic countries, and there's none in Asia, not much in Europe, and not much creationism at all in (mostly Catholic) Latin America. --Pablo D. Flores 12:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think these are all good comments for inclusion on this page and on the page creation science. There is some question as to whether this page should exist at all, but the compromise "stub" that we have up now is better than much of what was there previously.

 * Detailed research into your claims would be greatly appreciated on the creation science page. Please join the editting there. Joshuaschroeder 17:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

temp article
Creation biology/temp is now at Talk:Creation biology/temp. Please keep forks out of the main namespace and main categorisation system. Dunc|☺ 15:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

appeal to authority
Wdanwatts, re your edit here, you say you are removing "appeal to authority".

NPOV policy says report views of "experts on the subject". Listing credentials that qualifies someone as an "expert" is not an "appeal to authority", it is following NPOV policy. FuelWagon 19:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice URL
Short, simple, to the point. FuelWagon 19:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Creation biology/Archive 6


text:
User talk:Mhcecire

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

IB
Haha, mike that's really funny, Angry IB Alumni! --StevenL 02:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Maria Cecire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Warthog Demon  03:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Victory arch.jpg

The file File:Victory arch.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Mhcecire


text:
Arthur Mitchell (cricketer)

Arthur "Ticker" Mitchell (13 September 1902 – 25 December 1976) was an English first-class cricketer, who played both for Yorkshire County Cricket Club and England.

Born at Baildon in Yorkshire, and nicknamed "Ticker" because of a habit of talking to himself while batting, Mitchell was a solid, determined and sometimes dour middle order batsman who converted to become an opening batsman after the retirement of Percy Holmes in 1932. An accumulator of runs rather than a stroke maker, he very occasionally allowed himself to bat more freely, and when he did he revealed himself as a particularly fine cutter. He scored centuries in four consecutive innings for Yorkshire in 1933.

He was a particularly fine close-in fieldsman, noted for taking catches off the bowling of Hedley Verity. The Yorkshire cricket journalist John Bapty said of Mitchell's fielding: "His skill became such, and his fame mounted so that there were times when it was said he had missed a catch that never would have been accounted a chance had he not made it one."

Mitchell's Test cricket career might have consisted of just three matches on the 1933–34 tour of India, when he performed without distinction in what was, in effect, an England second eleven. But an injury to Maurice Leyland just before the Headingley Test against South Africa in 1935 led to Mitchell being summoned, literally, from his back garden. With scores of 58 and 72, he retained his place for the final Test, and played once more, against India in 1936.

His first-class career lasted from 1922 to 1945. Mitchell was appointed county coach to Yorkshire after World War II, and remained in the job until 1970.

He died in December 1976 in Bradford, Yorkshire, at the age of 74.

title: Arthur Mitchell (cricketer)