Proposed alteration to creationtheory.org website

[Darth Wong]

All of my websites are really old. And all of them were thrown together haphazardly, with disjointed pages strung together into sections as if they followed logically from one another. The creationtheory.org website is no exception. I've hated the "Introduction" section for a long time now, mostly because it was a bunch of disjointed ideas that I clumsily threw together with haphazard segues as if they were actually written one after the other.

Anyway, I'm thinking of replacing the old Introduction section with a single page that looks like this (although I would obviously add a bit of formatting). Any feedback on the new intro page?

[Guardsman Bass]

It looks like it will be pretty good, although a little bit drier in tone than the old introduction.

[Guardsman Bass]

EDIT: The beginning of the intro is a little bit drier in tone. It's still pretty good, particularly the section on why a theory must be disprovable.

[Surlethe]

Minor point: in "Attacking parsimony and atheism", you address attacks against atheism, but don't explicitly tie in the parsimony section with parsimony or Occam's razor; you might make that a little clearer.

Major point: it's really long for an introduction to a website, although it's not so long as an introduction to the topic. Perhaps you could break it up into sections like the previous version of the introduction so that it doesn't seem quite so monolithic.

[Metatwaddle]

I really like the Evolution in Popular Culture section. That's not something often discussed on these sorts of sites, but the misrepresentation of evolution is a very good thing to point out and discuss. If nothing else, it may help your case later on if you argue that the theory of evolution is misunderstood by most Americans.

I thought a weaker part of the page was the "What Are the Main Arguments for Evolution?" section, which had a nice promising bold header but which proceeded to say that summarizing the arguments for evolution would be too hard to do concisely, and went on to discuss how evolution makes specific predictions, but in terms vague enough that it felt more like a discussion of the scientific method than of evolution itself. Don't get me wrong; I think it's important to have that in there, but maybe some more concrete examples would be useful as well. Instead of just alluding to "the fossil record", you could add something like "The discovery of transitional species suggests that humans and apes had a common ancestor X million years ago," etc. If possible, you could do the same for "the living biosystem" and "recent natural events".

Another option would be to put some of the stuff from the "How to Disprove Evolution" section up into the Arguments for Evolution section, because these two are so linked: the theory of evolution says that A, B, C and D shouldn't happen, and none of those four things have been known to happen. That's an argument in favor of evolution.

I was thinking of saying that you should tackle "evolution is unfalsifiable" as one of the popular misconceptions, because you occasionally hear that from creationists who play at being sophisticated, but you covered that admirably elsewhere.

[Darth Wong]

Some fine suggestions so far. Keep it up!

[Guardsman Bass]

I wonder if it might be helpful to put in a little background about the religious background of the so-called "many scientists objecting to evolution", like some of Dembski's more pro-christian comments. Of course, that might come across as an Ad Hominem attack, so take it as you will.

[Twoyboy]

Love it Mike. Couple of things though.

I agree it's a bit long for an introduction. This may be more to do with my 12 second attention span, but it reads more like a debate summary, which is very useful in its own right! At least some links to each section at the top would make it easier to navigate, I had some trouble re-finding the quote I took below, because I didn't remember what section it was in. Once again, may have more to do with my attention span.

Also, very happy you mentioned what I now call "The X-men Fallacy" when discussing evolution. Seriously, loved the movie, hate the "science". (Ditto for Heroes.)

Lastly, I was struck by a funny thought while reading this: "It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him." I was under the impression they thought faith was a GOOD thing. If evidence flies in the face of their belief, the creationist says God is testing their faith, and they'll be rewarded even more for keeping up their belief in the face of doubt. So if my position takes more faith, then I'm even MORE blessed in the eyes of the Lord... Hallelujah!!

Haha, thinking like a creationist cracks me up every time.

[Ted C]

Evolution generates diversity, from which the strong survive.

I would hesitate to use the phrase “the strong survive”. It’s common, but it’s not especially accurate. Sometimes strength isn’t the best solution, as in the case of trees that have to frequently endure strong winds: the more flexible trees often do better than strong, rigid trees.

Evolution generates diversity, and variants that thrive in the environment produce more offspring than those that struggle or die.

“who want to believe that they are actually capable of assessing the quality of scientific theories”
want --> wants

And I agree with Surlethe that this is an immense article for a one-page introduction. It might be better to separate all the headings after the first into articles of their own, with links under the Introduction heading in your sidebar and within the Introduction article itself. You haven't really produced an "executive summary" version of your site's content with this page, although each component is excellent.

[Hillary]

Agree with a lot of the comments already expressed. An excellent article, but its not really a "front page" as its too long and detailed.

I actually stumbled on your creationist website before I discovered this one and the punchy style of the front page was what drew me in to looking further.

[D.Turtle]

I'm just posting things as I read the new introduction.

Third paragraph of the section "Evolution in Popular Culture":

It also assumes that you can actually predict the long-term outcome of evolution based on secret information locked in the genetic code, even though evolutionary is directed by environmental interaction.

The bolded part should be "evolution" and not "evolutionary"

I have to agree with others: The "What are the Main Arguments for Evolution?" section could use some actual arguments/examples.

In the "What are the Main Arguments for Creationism?" section you argue that:

Nowhere do any of them explain how creationism or "intelligent design" can explain any of the mysteries they're challenging science to explain; they simply assume that it must be able to, because it's so vague that it can predict anything.

This is not correct: They explain it with God/intelligent designer. I know that that is the same thing, but I think it would be better to make it clear why arguing that God is the answer is not an answer at all.
I just saw you address this in the last part of this section. I think it would better fit up in the part I just quoted. Or maybe just add a short note that you will address the "God did it" explanation below.

I really like the first paragraph in the "The Need for Negativity" section.

In the "Popular Misconceptions" section:
The problem with "Evolution generates diversity, from which the strong survive" was already mentioned.
I just had a thought when reading this part:

Computer simulations have been done, but of course, creationists reject them because they are artificial (I suppose they want us to use real monkeys).

Wouldn't it be hilarious if this experiment were done

I'm not sure I really like the last three paragraphs in the "Let the Students Decide for Themselves." They undoubtedly express the truth, but they seem very arrogant. They might turn off people reading that page. The rest of the introduction (which IS very long) is remarkably non-hostile, so I think it might be better to stay relatively non-hostile in the last few paragraphs.

Altogether, a very good summary of the subject matter, if quite long for a single page introduction. It might be better to just have a short introduction (like your current one) and have the rest of your new introduction as a series of pages/links.

[LaserRifleofDoom]

I really like the new page, but I found a mistake.

But Star Trek doesn't merely confuse metamorphosis with evolution. . . . It also assumes that you can actually predict the long-term outcome of evolution based on secret information locked in the genetic code, even though evolutionary ??? is directed by environmental interaction. . .

Evolutionary what? I think change would fit well in that last sentence. That's the big one that I noticed. But there may be other typos lurking in there.

[Edi]

Evolutionary development, presumably.

[Ted C]

Third paragraph of the section "Evolution in Popular Culture":

It also assumes that you can actually predict the long-term outcome of evolution based on secret information locked in the genetic code, even though evolutionary is directed by environmental interaction.

The bolded part should be "evolution" and not "evolutionary"

I'm glad you posted that. I remembered seeing it the first time, but didn't have the patience to go back through looking for it when I posted before.

I have to agree with others: The "What are the Main Arguments for Evolution?" section could use some actual arguments/examples.

Mike has a nice summary on the following page...

http://www.creationtheory.org/Introduct ... ence.shtml

I think it would be good to list the lines of evidence for evolution -- progressionism, homology, transformed organs, poor design, vestigial features, etc. -- and link the terms in the list to the explanations.

[TithonusSyndrome]

What did you have in mind to navigate around the site? Do you intend to have the links that were on the left side of the original introduction page also on the left of the new one?

[Darth Servo]

A bit long for an introduction. Also this:

"Humans are the most highly evolved species". This misconception assumes that evolution has some kind of plan, and that we are its ultimate product. This is completely wrong (not to mention egotistical). Evolution generates diversity, from which the strong survive. In the African savannah, that allowed our ancestors to thrive. In the caves of Venezuela, this favours deadly foot-long armoured centipedes. In the oceans, this favours sharks and whales. In a Japanese waste-water facility, it favours a mutated form of bacteria that could live on man-made nylon. Creationists tend to assume a plan for evolution because they want to believe that everything leads to humans, but biologically speaking, we are simply not that special.

is a bit awkward. Just a nitpick.

[wilfulton]

I would advise you to keep the introduction rather short. If you wish to compare the two in as much depth as you're doing there, it might be better to put on another page. The introduction is what will grab the reader's attention and cause them to focus on your argument.

A good way of doing this is to start with a catchy scene, such as the exchange between the little girl and her father (Daddy, why didn't the scientist tell us there would be an earthquake today / ... /Daddy, why didn't the priest tell us there would be an earthquake today).

That grabs the reader's attention. Then you proffer your own argument in rebuttal.

An additional note. You've seen that creationists make their arguments in a very forceful manner. This is an effective tactic, as the widespread creationist belief (according to that poll) can attest. A dry, scholarly debate, despite being more accurate, will not attract as much attention as a more graphic one, e.g. showing a few majors points in which the creationists are wrong (showing all of them would run you out of bandwidth pretty quickly I'd wager).

[Darth Wong]

I've made a few minor alterations to the page. Specifically, the first few paragraphs, the last few paragraphs, and the section on parsimony and atheism. I also added a summary section at the end.

More tweaks to come.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I'd add a part to to the Popular Misconceptions section about where life originated "If evolution says that life changed, then where did life come from in the first place! Eh?!?".

Apart from that and the formatting and previous comments, looks good

[Surlethe]

The parsimony/atheism section looks good now. The biggest criticism I can think of after skimming over it again is the length of the article, which has obviously been raised above. One other thing: you might want to include some form of the postscript from the current introduction to highlight creationist attempts to circumvent the First Amendment.

The inmates do not run the asylum.

[salm]

I wouldn´t make it that wide since reading things that are very wide seem to bother many people. Many news sites which have longer texts rely on narrower textblocks for example.
Now, of course it´s possible to resize the browser window but knowing people they won´t do it. They´ll simply start reading and then after a sentance or two click the close button.

[Darth Wong]

OK, I still haven't broken it up into pieces (I'll probably do that later, though). But I did take one of the most common criticisms, which was the paucity of information in the "Reasons for Evolution" section, and I tried to address that. This is the old version:

What are the Main Arguments for Evolution?

It would be exceedingly difficult to summarize all of the arguments for evolution in a concise fashion here. However, the most important point to remember is that evolution has a well-defined mechanism, so it can make very specific predictions, and those predictions have been repeatedly tested and shown to conform very accurately to the fossil record, the living biosystem, and recent natural events.

In order to show that evolution theory is false, one would have to show how you generate predictions with the theory and then show that those predictions are different from observation. That is the proper method for disproving a scientific theory. Unfortunately, the general population has considerable difficulty using this method, because it requires that you actually study the theory in great detail so that you can understand its operating mechanism and show how it can generate false predictions.

That's quite a lot of work, and it also won't produce the desired result, so creationists have adopted their own method for disproving a scientific theory: ask whether it can explain everything in the universe.

And this is the new version:

What are the Main Arguments for Evolution?

It would be exceedingly difficult to summarize all of the arguments for evolution in a concise fashion here. However, the most important point to remember is that evolution theory, like all scientific theories, was originally a solution to a problem. What's remarkable about anti-evolution propaganda is that it never acknowledges this fact, and so never takes on the burden of producing a better explanation for that original problem.

So what was this original problem that evolution theory was invented to solve? It's called the Linnaean Taxonomy, named after Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). If you are not familiar with the term, it is the categorizations of plant and animal species into a hierarchical structure. This structure has 7 layers: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Now, the remarkable thing about this system is that the early naturalists classified animals into a hierarchical "family tree" structure long before the theory of evolution was proposed. In other words, all naturalists agreed long before Darwin that the animal kingdom appeared to be a family tree.

Now the question becomes: why did they do that? The theory of evolution did not exist yet, so they obviously didn't do it to please "evolutionists", as creationists are wont to call them. What was their reasoning? Well here's where we run into an interesting coincidence in the animal kingdom: the appearance and development of animal features also looks like a family tree. In other words, you can take any given feature and trace its appearance, in various levels of complexity, along lines of animal species. Sometimes a feature will change in one direction for one branch of the tree and another direction for the other branch of the tree, and as you go farther along each branch, the two diverging features always (I must repeat this: ALWAYS) stay that way. They never, ever suddenly jump back and forth, even though there's no engineering reason that they couldn't. We have examined thousands and thousands of animal species and never observed such a thing even once. In fact, the more we learned about animals, the more we have shown the incredible consistency of this pattern, right down to embryonic developmental stages and microscopic biochemistry. Even germs, parasites, and genetic problems follow this pattern.

This is a classic example of a problem in need of a solution. It is not enough to classify it as coincidence, not when it is so incredibly consistent. And the problem gets worse: when those early naturalists examined the geographical distribution of the animal kingdom's "family tree", they discovered yet another impossibly unlikely "coincidence": species which appeared to be very close to one another on the family tree were also geographically close to one another. And whenever someone found what appeared to be an exception to this rule, they discovered a migratory path. Centuries later, the rule is unchanged: when species show a biological connection, they also show a geographical connection.

The significance of these two intertwined globe-spanning coincidences cannot be overstated: it was an enormous problem for taxonomy. If someone had indeed designed and created these species, he went to enormous lengths to make them appear to be related, by carefully arranging their structures and geography to match! Why would he do this? There was no intrinsic need for this, as we have proven in the last century by artificially moving species outside their natural habitat and seeing that in many cases, they thrive in far-off environments. There was no intrinsic need for features to be arranged in a hierarchical fashion, or for structural proximity to invariably mirror geographical proximity. So why would the designer do this? No one ever provided an answer ... until Darwin.

This, then, is the single largest argument for evolution: it is a solution to a problem that no other theory can explain. Creationists often try to argue that God could have chosen to make the animal kingdom look that way, but they can't explain why or how. And if they can't explain why or how, then they actually do not have an explanation. Can anyone explain how you would derive the prediction of a "family tree" animal kingdom from the idea of God? Only evolution offers a real explanation: the kind of explanation where you can start from its mechanism and use it to logically work forward to predict the outcome.

EDIT: typo fixed.

[Velthuijsen]

Looks good.
Maybe change

Creationists often try to argue that God could have chosen to make the animal kingdom look that way, but they can't explain why or how.

to:

• Creationists often try to argue that God could have chosen to make the flora and fauna look that way, but they can't explain why or how.

It is a maybe because you do not talk about plants but it would drive home the point that it is not just animals.

[Ted C]

However, the most important point to remember is that evolution theory, like all scientific theories, was originally a solution to a problem. What's remarkable about anti-evolution propaganda is that it never acknowledges this fact, and so never takes on the burden of producing a better explanation for that original problem.

So what was this original problem that evolution theory was invented to solve? It's called the Linnaean Taxonomy, named after Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778).

Oh, this is sweet stuff. I may have to steal it next time I get into an argument with a creationist.

[Rye]

Now the question becomes: why did they do that? The theory of evolution did not exist yet, so they obviously didn't do it to please "evolutionists", as creationists are wont to call them. What was their reasoning? Well here's where we run into an interesting coincidence in the animal kingdom: the appearance and development of animal features also looks like a family tree. In other words, you can take any given feature and trace its appearance, in various levels of complexity, along lines of animal species. Sometimes a feature will change in one direction for one branch of the tree and another direction for the other branch of the tree, and as you go farther along each branch, the two diverging features always (I must repeat this: ALWAYS) stay that way. They never, ever suddenly jump back and forth, even though there's no engineering reason that they couldn't.

Are you sure about this?

I'm just remembering this article. Or is that something different to what you're describing here?