Talk:Creation biology

This page has been archived. Please the archive for the previous discussions:

• /Archive1
• /Archive2
• /Archive3
• /Archive4
• /Archive5

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. [1].

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? [2] 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: [3] and [4] and [5]

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 Creation biology/temp -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creation biology

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 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 and the global tree of life.

Creation biologists have proposed several ideas, which differ a great deal 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 philosophical naturalism, which claims that life increased in diversity and complexity through the mechanism of evolution, without the influence of any designer.
• Created kinds, sometimes called baraminology, that is, the idea that life was originally created in a finite number of discrete forms or baramin, and that while these kinds have 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.

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)

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)

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)