Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 16

message: This issue was made explicit by Johnson in the BBC documentary A War on Science, so I've watched it and transcribed his statements: 
These statements seem to me to be relevant to the points being discussed. ... dave souza, talk 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The programme's available online at  Google video: the BBC documentary, "A War On Science.". .. dave souza, talk 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I watched it, but I think the Regents Lecture right after he published his book "Darwin on Trial" is much more telling. He tells several huge lies in his lecture. He is incredibly glib. He uses misquotes. He uses every dirty lawyerly trick imaginable.--Filll 02:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just now watching the BBC documentary.  Interesting.  They fail to mention that the creationists, in winning the scopes trial, were winning a publicity stunt dreamed up by the ACLU and the local town.  This is as bad, it seems, as what you describe happened in the Regents Lecture.  StudyAndBeWise 05:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Johnson in A War on Science

message: I may experiment with it, but last time I tried to do something like that, I really hosed things up.  StudyAndBeWise 04:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have done, hope that's ok. I've cut this as short as seemed reasonable, there's been recent discussion of Widely quoted Newsweek article, Peking man, Creation/evolution controversy in the age of Darwin, Are the findings of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District a neutral source?. and "Kinds" and "baramin" are terms invented by creationists and derived from the book of Genesis; feel free to revive these or any other topics you think still need attention. ..dave souza, talk 09:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you sir!  StudyAndBeWise 18:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody want to archive older parts of this talk page?  

message: Dawkins reports that Dan Dennett, calls it "an unrebuttable refutation" dating back two centuries.<rref>, referring to </rref>
The Dennett|2005 reference had been listed as:  
* 
However, I can find no record that this book was released in 2005.  I have found this book in 1995 (I have a copy right now).  And on page 155 of the 1995 version, I can find nothing regarding "unrebuttable refutation."  A search on Amazon for 978-0684802909 turns up a 1995 book as well.
:Product Details
::*Hardcover: 592 pages 
::*Publisher: Simon & Schuster (May 10, 1995) 
::*Language: English 
::*ISBN-10: 0684802902 
::*ISBN-13: 978-0684802909 
::*Product Dimensions: 1.5 x 6.5 x 9.8 inches 
::*Shipping Weight: 1.95 pounds 
Ignoring the question of whether this citation and the sentence it supports belongs in the article, I am trying to figure out how to clean this up.  Was Dennett's book re-released with its pages resequenced in 2005, or is this possibly referring to a book other than Darwin's Dangerous Idea:  Evolution and the Meanings of Life?  I searched the index of the 1995 book for references to a 747, Hoyle, etc., but found nothing in the 1995 book regarding "an unrebuttable refutation."  Of course, not finding anything could be human error on my part.  But I think we need to clean this up, or remove it. StudyAndBeWise 18:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I just found it.  Wouldn't you know it, I found it right after I pushed the "save page" button.  I will now try to harmonize the dates regarding the Dennet citation. StudyAndBeWise 18:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, Dawkins quoting Dennett praising Dawkins...is it just me, or does this seem strange?  StudyAndBeWise 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That Dawkins is an egotistical, inflated, arrogant snot? Not really. Ok, joking aside, if one brought up an argument before it is isn't intrinsically unreasonable to note what other people have said about it. JoshuaZ 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dawkins can be a bit over the top sometimes, but a lot of the figures in this entire controversy can be over the top  as well. Gould as well was a bit much. And Philip E. Johnson is one of the most amazing characters if you study his pronouncements; amazing. HIV denial as the cause of AIDS.  Claims of great secret conspiracies to inflate African AIDS figures to play on the sympathies of the bleeding hearts and cheat the gullible stupid West out of money to help the poor and sick. His attack on the Theory of Everything in physics based purely on the name, since "everything" implies there is no place for God, in his mind, so it is all crap to him. His rants about how awful Christians are who accept evolution. Smarmy. Greasy. Glib. His rejection of every piece of evidence he is confronted with, in a blind knee-jerk reaction. His claims he is better and smarter than all the scientists and all the courts and all the lawyers and educators etc, based on judicious quote-mining and lying. These people involved in this controversy are ALL a bit outrageous I think. --Filll 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan Dennett's "unrebuttable refutation" citation questions 

message: Somebody posted this to cite the claim that 
While I still believe this original 1998 study by Molleen Matsumura is probably true, I do not think the citation provided is a reliable source.  This is my opinion, nothing to act on yet.  My reasons are as follows:
1.  John Richard Schrock seems to be writing an editorial. (page 17A)  He has just had published another editorial on Feb. 1, 2007. 
2.  He speciously claims that many evolutionary scientists are Christians using an anecdotal rhetorical device.
3.  He is abusing statistics, and admits it (and he is not a statatician):
4.  To back up his difficult to believe claims about evolutionary scientists, he switches gears to high school biology teachers, and quotes a public school teacher who happened to be Roman Catholic.
Based on my internet research, my *guess* the findings are in a 1998 article What do Christians Really Believe about Evolution?NCSE Reports Volume 18 Number 2 Published March, 1998 by Molleen Matsumura . (Matsumura, M. 1998. What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution? Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 8-9.)
However, I cannot find it online.  However, this That this is the article with the quote is a guess only.
I propose that we delete references to the 1998 Matsumura findings until we can find a reliable source (or the original).  StudyAndBeWise 09:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted it.  I am optomistic that we will find a Matsumura|1998 reference, but meanwhile, an editorial special to the Wichita Eagle by a person who "trains biology teachers," and/or???? is a biologist, who munches statistics, cannot be considered a reliable source even if he uses quotation marks, cites the author he is quoting, and provide a year.  (Note--no article title, journal title, or other references that will allow us to validate this claim made in an editorial.)  If you disagree, feel free to revert my edits regarding Matsumura|1998 and Schrock|2005. StudyAndBeWise 09:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks again filll, I just sent him an email explaining the dilema, and requesting a harvard citation for the Molleen Matsumura quote.  Hopefully he will be kind enough to respond.  If he does, I'll post the harvard citation to the discussion page, and we can then decide if we want to either assume it is correct or verify the citation. StudyAndBeWise 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have also called the National Center for Science Education before and they are very helpful with references. I am pretty sure they would help again here if we asked. They do read our articles regularly including the talk pages, so be aware that they have a pretty good idea of what is going on here.--Filll 18:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh oh, do I have to worry now?  I mean, this is a federal agency, right?  Might end up on a no fly list or something...:)  StudyAndBeWise 23:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Had some problems getting Amazon to show the contents list, but noted this impressive statement – "Each volume combines the most authoritative text available with the comprehenive pedagogical apparatus necessary to appreciate the work fully." Wow! Sounds like test tubes and bunsen burners at least!!  :) dave souza, talk 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at the table of contents.  The article I suspect is where the quote is from is there in the table of contents as filll noted.  However, just in case there is any confusion, I could be wrong; it might be another article Matsumura|1998.  I am guessing based on the year of publication and the subject of the article as titled that this is the correct article.   StudyAndBeWise 23:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Holy cow you got an email from the boss. This is THE famous Dr. Scott herself, I bet. Impressive. You must have pull or something. Actually from my conversations with them, I believe they want to help us write the best possible articles on these topics.--Filll 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, an interesting part is that she was BCC'd on an email response to me from a third party, but she responded to the BCC.  I did not know she was BCC'd until after I received her response.  Surreal.  StudyAndBeWise 07:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wichita Eagle and John Richard Schrock Reliable Source? 

message: I just got an email from Dr. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc., (don't I feel important, and confused about the "Inc.") he ^she^ offered to send me a pdf file of the article in question, after Dr. confirmed that the quote came from:
Matsumura, Molleen. 1998. What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution? from the Reports of the National Center About Evolution 18(2): 8--9.  It has also been reprinted with permission in Kansas Biology Teacher 8(1): 13.
I have enough information to believe the quote was fair and accurate, though I am interested to read the article once Dr. Scott sends it.  If you want me to add this as a Harvard reference, let me know.  StudyAndBeWise 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy cow you got an email from the boss. This is THE famous Dr. Scott herself, I bet. Impressive. You must have pull or something. Actually from my conversations with them, I believe they want to help us write the best possible articles on these topics.--Filll 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, an interesting part is that she was BCC'd on an email response to me from a third party, but she responded to the BCC.  I did not know she was BCC'd until after I received her response.  Surreal.  StudyAndBeWise 07:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Center for Science Education, Inc. 

message: For use in other articles quoting Matsumura|1998 on the 89.6%, here is the harvard citation:
*
And here is the harvard reference (replace rref with ref):
* adapting table from a June, 1998 article titled Believers: Dynamic Dozen put out by Religion News Services which in turn cites the 1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches
Hope this helps.  StudyAndBeWise 21:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I received the PDF, and have updated the article.  

message: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/8371_cloning_creationism_in_turkey_12_30_1899.asp 
Adam Cuerden talk 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this too while researching the Molleen Matsumura quote.  I'll try to read it sometime, but if you beat me to it, feel free to include information that belongs in the article. StudyAndBeWise 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Creationism 

message: I am a bit confused. This is an estimate with 1 sigma error bars? Or what? What is this range?--Filll 21:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Filll, see the discussion on the Level of Support for Evolution page.  I quoted the article there.  The 77% comes from the cited Matsumura|1998 article.  See here StudyAndBeWise 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a pure direct quote?
--Filll 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, to the best of my typing abilities. StudyAndBeWise 22:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 77-89.6%

message: I think this section should go:  Analysis of Creationist claims
This is an article on the controversy.  Perhaps this should go to an article on creationism instead?  I am willing to consider other views. 
For reference, this is what I cut:
===Analysis of Creationist claims=== 
*The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)
*Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences
*Archive of the Talk.Origins usenet newsgroup
*Description of modern synthesis of evolution
*Scientific evidence for evolution and refutations of creationist arguments
*Evowiki: List of creationist arguments
*Why Creationism is Wrong - An Essay by Amit Gulab Deshwar
*One Longsome Argument - Skeptical Inquirer article explaining the misconceptions and fallacies that lead people to doubt evolution
*Criticism of creationism
*Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism
*Evolution is both fact and theory essay by Stephen Jay Gould
*Humanist Association: Creationism in British Schools
*Evolution resources from the National Academies - The US National Academy of Sciences have created this site to fight misconceptions about evolution.
*The second law of thermodynamics and evolution from 2ndlaw.com argues against creationist claims.
*Foundation For Reason And Science
StudyAndBeWise 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We wouldn't want this to be linked from the article?  ("This" is a creationist's analysis of evolutionary science.) StudyAndBeWise 05:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis of Creationist claims 

message: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/when_i_use_a_word_it_means_jus.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you're trying to say?  I assume it's not just "Hey, take a look at this interesting blog."  I assume you're trying to say that we shouldn't quote Jonathan Wells' use of the term darwinism?  I just checked the article and it doesn't quote Wells.  If you meant more than that, you'll have to be explicit.  StudyAndBeWise 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Darwinism" rehashed. 

message: Can't do much as I'm very ill, but
http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=246 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you get better.  I'll wait until you can articulate the point you're trying to make before I respond.  StudyAndBeWise 04:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another cite 

message: I just undid the anonymous edits by 24.108.7.53.  This is a diff.
1.  S/he replaced "scientists" with "people with recognized scientific credentials."  The change doesn't add much meaning but does add more words.  This change was not necessary, and the sentence before the change accurately represented the cited source.
2.  S/he added:
This is a position of many scientists on the evolutionary side of the debate.  I removed this for three reasons:  1.  It's location in the ICR co-opting section, which is describing the ICR, and not debunking them.  2.  If it belongs in the article, it belongs elsewhere in the article (it may belong in a different article).  3.  It should be cited.
3.  S/he added the following incited uncited material to the section describing the ICR's co-opting of the creationist label:
I removed this because:  1.  It is located in the wrong section.  2.  It should be cited.  3.  It appears to be geared toward deciding the controversy, when this particular article is to describe the controversy.  Other articles on wikipedia are more geared toward deciding the controversy (or at least presenting the overwhelming scientific view on the matter).  Even so, if the point being made can be cited, it could arguably be placed somewhere in the article.
4.  I removed the following because while many scientists agree with the point made in the citation, many others do not (there is a debate regarding the universal application of Popper's falsifiability to science).
If you read this 24.108.7.53, I would recommend the following in searching for citations, in the following order:
:1.  Disinterested parties, e.g., journalists, historians, etc.
:2.  Interested parties on both sides of the controversies.
:3.  Interested parties on one side of the controversy.  (In this case, the presentation of the material should, in my own opinion, describe the material as being from an interested party).  E.g., "Creation scientists state that X is Y."<rev>, </ref>"
I also recommend that you either include them additions in the appropriate section (or article), and/or that you create a new section with enough materials and citations to justify an additional section.  Please feel free to discuss.  And please don't be discouraged.  This is a controversial article, and we are trying to keep it balanced, organized, and well written.  We don't want it to devolve into a "They claim...they counter...but they claim..." type of article with disjointed adjacent contradictory sentences.  (We have more work to do along these lines, but we have made some progress too.)  You also might want to examine some of the other evolution/creation articles, where some of your material might be more suitable.  This particular article is about the controversy, not resolving it. StudyAndBeWise 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edits by 24.108.7.53 

message: I am trying to read Dennet's book for this article, but it is not very useful along these lines.  There are some unexpected turns, however.  For example, Dennet's portrayal of Gould is less than flattering at times.  StudyAndBeWise 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arr, well, remember not to give undue weight to his odder opinions, unless others say it too. =) Adam Cuerden talk 09:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Gould portrayed as "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" in Dennet's book 

message: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/when_i_use_a_word_it_means_jus.php
This was for the previous discussion of "Darwinism" as a term. Particularly noteworthy is the quote of Ernst Mayr, 
"The word "Darwinism" has continued to change its meaning over the years. In the period immediately after 1859 it referred most often to the totality of Darwin's thinking, while it strictly means natural selection for the evolutionary biologist of today." 
...I think we should avoid the term. Adam Cuerden talk 11:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explamnation of above cite 

message: I nominate this section for deletion. Some reasons are that it lacks notability (nothing special here), it lacks importance, and is mostly obvious/self-explanatory. Over all it does not contribute to the article nor does it help us understand the subjedct of the article any better. Article is long enough as it is. ~ UBeR 21:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Common venues for debate

message: I am moving a recent addition to the opening.
Because
1.  This is based on a reference to a reproduction of a science magazine citing a disocover letter (read: editorial) quoting the subject, Duane Gish, who may or may not speak for so-called creation scientists.
2.  It would better fit in the section on creation science as a metaphysical research program.  (I.e., it is already addressed)...even so.
3.  It reverts to previous presentation methods, that is, sentence, contradiction, sentence, contradiction, which makes the article incoherant.  I've been trying to move away from this (though there is work to do on this front).
Anyway, I am going to try to better present the citation so that readers don't have to visit the off-site web-site to learn that this is a purported reproduction of a science magazine referencing a discover letter purporting to quote Gish, and also include it in the metaphysical research quotes, becuase that section could use support.  StudyAndBeWise 14:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I am done moving it.  If anybody has a copy of either the science and or discover letter, please update the harvard reference, or post the pertainent details here and I will do it.  StudyAndBeWise 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving addion to opening 

message: See this diff:  diff
I don't think this is POV.  It would be understandable to construe this as original research.  However, the irony of the matter is what justifies including the description and reference to McLean v. Arkansas.  And the irony is there, and I don't think the irony is controversial and/or POV.  The irony is an objective description and no great leap of logic.  I'll leave it out for now and just raise my objection here for others to comment on.
Changed from:
Changed to:
Context:  Creationists using falsifiability as doubled edged weapon (citable) against evolution have the argument(weapon) used against them in McLean v. Arkansas.
: Meh, maybe I'm just in a bad mood. If you disagree with my decision feel free to revert it. JoshuaZ 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wait for other comments.  It's not a big deal, and does raise a question regarding original research in my mind, and possibly POV in yours.  StudyAndBeWise 15:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, JoshuaZ,  I see you identified it as OR as well as possibly POV...my mistake.  I'll let others help me understand the OR line, and when it is crossed.  I disagree with the POV, but am willing to listen.  StudyAndBeWise 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The POV concern is that due to the inherently subjective nature of irony, saying something is ironic is almost always POV. JoshuaZ 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I just added a transition sentence per Dave Souza.  Hopefully this addresses the OR concern and softens the transition.  StudyAndBeWise 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ironically" as POV? 

message: <P>The first two paragraphs of the page are fine, but the third is  not.</p>
<P><B>"Although there has been some success in de-emphasizing evolution in some public schools by applying pressure to local school boards and even individual teachers, the teaching of evolution is still widespread."</B>
This sentence is very clearly not Neutral Point of View... "success in de-emphasizing evolution", "teaching of evolution is still widespread".</p>
<P> The second sentence says <B>"consistently thwarting the introduction of creation science and intelligent design into public science curricula"</b> which reads as if it is inherently right for "creation science and intelligent design" to be in the "public science curricula".</p>
Clearly, I am on the side of science, not religion but I hope that I would have picked up on this point if I was undecided on the issue. The current introduction is a very poor starting-point for an otherwise quite neutral article; I will work on a genuinely neutral solution and will edit, probably tomorrow.</P>Asteroceras 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will point out that it is extremely hard to be NPOV in these articles. No matter how they are written, someone thinks they are biased.--Filll 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, I'm inclined to agree, I fear. Adam Cuerden talk 02:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am open to persuasion, but this is not easy to write, that is for sure.--Filll 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also want to add I don't think being NPOV is subject to a poll of people who are participants to the controversy.  If NPOV sources such as Numbers and Larson portray something a certain way, the onus on showing that the source, and hence the paraphrasing of the source, is POV is on the accuser.  StudyAndBeWise 03:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction massively biased

message: 1.  It describes the unflattering tactic of pressuring individual teachers, correctly characterizing the lengths participants of the debate are willing to employ, illustrating the emotion of the debate.
2.  It accurately describes the lack of success on the part of some on the creation side to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution.
3.  It is factually true.
4.  It is backed up with a reference to a minister and a scientist [not entirely unsympathetic to the creation side] who, among other points, describe how "high-school teachers are terrorized by ringing telephones, fearing an irate parent will scold them for teaching godless evolution to their children."
Next, I quote from page p=39-40 of Numbers|1992
which lends credance to the idea that irate parents would attempt to thwart evolution in the public schools.
In any event, this is an article about the controversy, and not to decide it.  The above quoted statements are supported by NPOV sources, do not decide the controversy, and do are not flattering (biased towards) either side.  They are objective statements of fact.  StudyAndBeWise 03:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I would add the Bioscience article as a reference if it weren't a reproduction.  (I am often critical of anonymous websites putting up reproductions to legitimate articles, so I won't do it now, even though it supports the current phrasing).  StudyAndBeWise 04:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Passive voice is bad. I would suggest changing "Although there has been some success in de-emphasizing evolution in some public schools by applying pressure to local school boards and even individual teachers, the teaching of evolution is still widespread." To "Although creationists have had  some success in de-emphasizing evolution in some public schools by applying pressure to local school boards and even individual teachers, the teaching of evolution is still widespread." JoshuaZ 04:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this, JoshuaZ.  If you would make the change, I would appreciate it.  (I agree with this critique, and recognize it as a problem in my writing.)  StudyAndBeWise 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well somebody changed it to phrasing I can live with.  If any further changes are made that change meaning, I request that the contributor go over the references, as well as the stuff posted in this discussion.  Thanks to the contributor who changed it and found some neutral ground.  It is amazing how this was found so quickly by what appears to be a lurker.  StudyAndBeWise 04:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I don't like about the sentence is the word "widespread."  Where is it widespread?  Out in the sticks?  Big Cities?  California?  Alabama?  Every time a school district here in California, even in rural areas, attempts to teach ID or Creationism, they get sued, the school district loses (or gives up because of cost), and Evolution is taught in science.  From my viewpoint, the teaching of Evolution is not widespread, it is total.  Predominant would be my word.  Orangemarlin 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this is not POV 

message: <P>"is still widespread" is a term used almost universally with negative implications: "malnutrition is still widespread in sub-Saharan Africa", for example; we do not hear that "good nutrition is still widespread in Iceland". This is why I disagree with "is still widespread" and i would replace it with "is still normal/typical/convention". I suppose "some success" is acceptable, in line with StudyAndBeWise's notes.</P>
<P>While the last sentence is true</I>, I still find it strongly pro-creation, by implying that ID and CS have valid places in the science curriculum. I would rephrase to:</p>
In the United States, recent court decisions have affirmed this position, preventing creation science and intelligent design from being taught in public science classes [or classrooms].
<P>I do not think that "national bias" in the introduction is a problem, as the issue is very much more significant in the US than anywhere else.</p>
<P>I have not gone ahead and made these edits, as I would like to hear how vehement my opposition is   ;)   for your information, I am not a lurker, but entirely new to Wikipedia (in the last week or so) as I need something to do when i am not answering calls at my new job.</p> Asteroceras 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, nice to have you aboard.  I wish that you were right, that this controversy were only significant in the US, as it used to be some time ago.  Now, largely thanks to the Discovery Institute, the controversy has been deliberately and forcefully pushed onto the rest of the world, it is now definitely a global political issue.  The article needs to reflect that; the introduction needs to be clear about the scope of the article.Trishm 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would favor Aster's changes but agree with Trish that the other issues need to be dealt with as well. (Also, my impression is that it isnt just the DI but AIG to a large extent as well). JoshuaZ 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did say "very much more significant in the US", not "only significant in the US". Asteroceras 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Even so, after reading OM's comments above, I changed the word to a stronger but accurate synonym:  predominant.  Consequently, this point may be moot, unless predominant has negative connotations in others' minds.  StudyAndBeWise 03:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The responses to my topic: "Introduction massively biased" 

message: You are ascribing connotations not indicated in my dictionary (Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate).  Indeed, it has an example with neutral to positive connotations "widewpread public interest".  Please provide a reference (from a linguist or a dictionary) to back up this assertion that the term widespread has negative implications. StudyAndBeWise 03:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, after reading OM's comments above, I changed the word to a stronger but accurate synonym:  predominant.  Consequently, this point may be moot, unless predominant has negative connotations in others' minds.  StudyAndBeWise 03:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Widespread" has no negative connotations in my dictionary 

message: The original "Planet of the Apes" movie had a strong emphasis on it's social commentary regarding evolution.  Since this is a controversial article I thought it'd be best to ask if this is an appropriate bit to include in the article(once I've found some profssional reviews which note this point and can be used as references)? i kan reed 03:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Followup statement specifically as an example of how this contraversy affected artistic culture of the United States. i kan reed 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think finding a reviewer of films who makes this observation is not sufficient for this article.  If that is all you can find (reviewers of films)--then I think it would go in an article on the movie.  I have not come accross any references talking about the planet of the apes in my research for this article, but if I did, and it was more than a sentence, I think it would be worthy of inclusion in this article, especially if there was some real controversy.  These are just my opinions, and what would guide me.  StudyAndBeWise 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet of the Apes 

message: I don't think I addressed sufficiently another point:
I want to first quote the full sentence as it exists in the article at this time, because a key part has been left out in the critique.
The Courts have been thwarting, consistently.  This is accurate.  It is neutral.  It leads one to believe that the courts are unjust if one is a creationist.  It leads one to think that efforts to have the subjects brought into public schools is somehow wrong if you're an anti-ID or anti-CS type, or perhaps even if your neutral and just trust the courts when they are consistent.
Personally, I have a view, and it is that CS and ID should not be taught as science, and if it is taught at all, it should be perhaps mentioned in social science or current event classes.  I try to be neutral in this article on the controversy, however.  I make conscious efforts to be neutral, which is why I might be a little too sensitive.  The contributions I have made to this article are not what I would write on my own blog, where I would take greater license in letting my own POV prevail on the article.  In any event, my view is irrelevant, unless I am letting it seep into the article, or unless I am over-compensating for my own view.
So back to the point.  To some parties to the controversy, it is inherently right for "creation science and intelligent design" to be taught in science class rooms of public schools.  But I don't think those parties would like the sentence you're critiquing either.  (They might not want the sentence in the article). 
Let's try to change the sentence's subject without changing the form.
 
Which side is this biased toward?  Or is it just poorly worded?  StudyAndBeWise 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest stating that the courts are rejecting rather than thwarting the introduction. I don't expect this to be controversial, so I will go ahead and make the change, but if anybody think it has to be debated, just change it back. Terjen 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not change it back, at least for now.  I will comment, though, that the courts are not merely rejecting arguments, they are also preventing the introduction (via injunctions and rulings).  I think thwarting may not be precise enough, either.  In fact, the courts listen to arguments, take sides, and wield some power while deciding legal controversies.  Usually, a U.S. court cannot unilaterally decide something if one of the parties in the dispute hasn't requested it.  (But I am no lawyer)  I think a lawyer might be the most able to come up with better phrasing.  Perhaps rejecting is okay, but to me it is incomplete (yes, they reject the arguments, but in making a decision on the merits of the case, the court has some power, and can prevent the introduction).  A word or words that convey both rejection of an argument and prevention of the introduction would be best.  StudyAndBeWise 05:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Thwart" is a loaded word - it implies that the courts are active in suppressing creationists, rather than being impartial.  The result, of course, is that the creationists efforts are thwarted.Trishm 06:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Stymied?Trishm 06:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The legal term would be barring, as in the court is consistently barring the introduction of...  Terjen 08:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To address "inherently right" perspective 

message: Now I see that the harvard referencing should be replaced by Template:Citation.  It seems to work.  For others who are knowledgeable, pless see Template:Citation.  It looks like the keywords have changed, no uppercase first word in the keyword.  Other than that, harvnb still links to citation as it used to reference harvard reference.  I have a problem, this should be called "reference" and not "citation"--either that, or I am have a gross misunderstanding of the terms (which is possible).  StudyAndBeWise 06:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Citation 

message: How do you form a citation/reference for a documentary?  
BBC, Horizon, A War on Science
A War on Science
(I think this is a fairly good documentary, I give it a B, and has value for being able to provide alternative sources to existing parts of this article).  StudyAndBeWise 06:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation please 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution Please comment. --ScienceApologist 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New AfD

message: Please vote on the relevance of this section on the article common descent. -- Pbarnes 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationism and Common descent

message: "evangelized for Darwinism" is the term used by Larson on p=253.  As a NPOV RS, I don't think we need to say thing like "in the words of Larson, evangelized for Darwinism."  I understand that this phrasing is objected to by people who are sympathetic to one side of this controversy, but I reverted because Larson is a NPOV RS.  I am willing to listen to counter-arguments, but meanwhile, I don't think we should get in the habit of re-packaging the presentation of the controversy, when NPOV RS's have presented it in a way that partisans dislike.  This article is not about science.  It is about a controversy.  StudyAndBeWise 17:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original version paraphrased Larson, rather than quote him as it does now. We can paraphrase without using the same words, hence changing the term evangelized to a synonym should not be controversial. Larson may have intended the term as a pun but that is lost when out of context. We don't have to quote Larson instead of paraphrasing him just to be able to keep evangelized in the sentence.Terjen 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By softening the characterization (see the quoted text above....it took a good deal of time to type, please read it before commenting...I can't make it much easier than this for you), you would be inserting your own POV.  StudyAndBeWise 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I do want to apologize for being too defensive.  I still think the word should indicate a pseudo-religious zeal that promoting does not.  StudyAndBeWise 22:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that there's one major problem with that quote: Huxley and Simpson were early proponents of the Modern synthesis. Larson is obviously a powerful writer, of great intelligence, but you can't accurately use "Darwinism" to refer to the modern synthesis. The correct term is Neo-Darwinism, because the modern synthesis combines two theories that were, before then, in conflict: Darwinism (Natural selection) and Mendelian genetics. It works fine in context, as it's perfectly clear what Larson's referring to, and the rhetorical merit of the phrase (and it is a finely-crafted phrase) wins out over perfect accuracy, but there is a difference, and that means we shouldn't use the phrase exactly when there are not literary reasons to trump precision. However, I've tried to capture the flavour of it. Adam Cuerden talk 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He does identify them in the opening sentence as "As leading neo-Darwinian scientists...".  And in the context of the disputed sentence, they were identified as neo-darwinists, and described as promoting darwinism.  The difference between neo-darwinism and darwinism is not relevent in this context.  Anyway, "advocated evolution with an almost religious zeal," as somebody changed it, is accurate but verbose and less than complete, and somewhat softer.  And by making the description softer, I am against it.  I'll work on it some more.  StudyAndBeWise 08:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going tohave to give you a very important warning - and I'll PM this to you too: Julian Huxley literally turned science into a religion, and became a strong advocate of transhumanism.  We must not describe other biologists of that period with the language suited to Huxley. Adam Cuerden talk 08:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: He does identify them in the opening sentence as "As leading neo-Darwinian scientists...".  And in that spirit, they were identified as neo-darwinists, and described as promoting darwinism, in the same sentence.  The scientific difference between Neo-Darwinism and Darwinism is not relevent in this context.  In this context, Darwinism refers to a pseudo-religious crusade of prominent scientific intellectuals, not the scientific theory that existed before Neo-Darwinism.  Anyway, "advocated evolution with an almost religious zeal," as somebody changed it, is accurate and incomplete, as well as verbose, and somewhat softer.  And by making the description softer, I am against it.  I'll work on it some more....I changed it back.  The change that was there suffered from the problems I identified above, and also, as a minor nit, repeated words like evolution and promote within two sentences. StudyAndBeWise 08:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't want to edit war with you over this, so if you see fit to change it back again, I'll hold my peace, but I don't think we should say all Neo-Darwinists were like Julian Huxley, as we currently are. We should be softer when referring to the whole group than when referring to Huxley alone. Adam Cuerden talk 08:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. Sorry to be difficult, just that what's good for Huxley isn't really good for the group as a whole, if you see my point. That Larson quote about "Julian Huxley championed a nontheistic "religion without revelation" that worshiped natural selection as its guiding process." should be pretty much read literally Adam Cuerden talk 08:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Actually... I don't know that much about Simpson. If Simpson's the same, we could just remove the mention of the other Neo-Darwinists. Adam Cuerden talk 08:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I am done.  It's late, and I may not have adequately addressed your concern, but I tried.  You're being reasonable, so if you want to take another stab at it, try to rework surrounding sentences to 1.  correctly characterize the zeal and motivation that went beyond merely promoting science.  2.  not use the words "evolution" and "promote" too close together (Thesaurus).  I do not consider this an edit war is what I mean, and I may not have addressed your point about Huxley adequately.  StudyAndBeWise 08:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  evangelized for Darwinism use by NPOV RS 

message: While this may not make much of a dent, somebody (not me) tagged the Common venues for debate section with .  This may have been in repsonse to some hidden comments I instered.  I have no problem deleting the section, but I am a ludite who hates computers.  However, maybe it can just be reworked.  But deleting it would shrink the file.  Comments?  StudyAndBeWise 01:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is one of the more tangental sections... Obviously, I don't want to denigrate all your extremely good work, but I think in this case a cut will end up making the article stronger. Adam Cuerden talk 03:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I support deleting the Common venues for debate section, but leave a reference to the TalkOrigins Archive in the See Also section. Terjen 03:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't take full credit for this section.  I think Filll or Dave S. may have added some of it, and I may have later attempted to rework it.  But if you cut it, I won't complain.  I'll cut it and post it here in case one of the previous contributors wants to add it back or rework it.  StudyAndBeWise 06:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is, cut and pastable....StudyAndBeWise 06:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, the article most definitely need shrinking – I bug-fixed the reference links one-by-one, and the wikiservers response was slow. Unless the text actually can be packed to say what it says now with less words, I suggest splitup. Rursus 13:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shrinking the current article 

message: "Evolutionary opponents defining evolution" and "Evolutionary defenders defining evolutionary opponents"   seem... very oddly placed, especially as a second-level heading, which makes them part of the history section. Have we cut something that left them orphaned? Adam Cuerden talk 03:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I added these sections, but with reservations.  They don't seem placed right, and have other problems.  I was hoping to find more inforomation on this, but I have not tried very hard.  Not sure what to do.  StudyAndBeWise 05:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections out of place? 

message: I am not sure the article length as reported is fair.  For example, are hidden comments included in the article length?  Are references and citations (which are more numerous here than many articles, and also presented in a more bloated format (harvard referencing).  Does anybody know how the length is calculated, and how one would go about gauging the true length of the article proper?  StudyAndBeWise 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it: Copy the visible text, ignoring the references section. Paste it into a new article. Hit preview (NOT SAVE), and you'll get the "actual" length. I'll do that now. Adam Cuerden talk 07:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 52 Kilobytes. Still pretty long. Adam Cuerden talk 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the instructions.  52k is a significant drop from 102k, though.  Not to say that everything should stay, or that the article's organization couldn't be better.  StudyAndBeWise 07:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: Because a lot of changes have been made since the last reviews, and a lot of changes are being proposed right now.  I'd like to have people who are not actively editing creation or evolution articles read this, and ideally these will be persons who can seperate their personal beliefs from what is the best presentation of this article, given its subject matter. StudyAndBeWise 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea, but I'd suggest personal invites might work better than a general call: You get fewer disruptive people in that way. Adam Cuerden talk 07:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article should be re-reviewed in light of recent changes 

message: In the section Arguments against evolution, the following exists:
This is original research as it is now.  It is an example of what looks like a contributor saying "see this reference to understand why I reached this conclusion."  It would be much better to have a reliable NPOV source for this, or a reference to a creationist reaching the conclusion that the contributor did.  I have had a hidden comment tagging this for awhile now, but nothing has happened.  I don't want to just delete it, though.  Does anybody here have the background to rework this section to read less like "creationists are bad, and see these creationist writings to see why".  StudyAndBeWise 06:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, read that again: It's saying that Creationists claim evolution is based on false assumptions, etc, so the source holds. But it did take me three readings to realise that. Adam Cuerden talk 06:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you're right.  It took you three times, and me at least three, so maybe it needs to be reworded (or I need to read more carefully).  StudyAndBeWise 07:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's one convoluted sentence. Adam Cuerden talk 20:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poland#Polish_government_vs._Evolutionism_dispute
Adam Cuerden talk 06:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, please add more than a link.  Is this link an FYI, or something else?  StudyAndBeWise 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland 

message: Per Guettarda's invitation, I'll chime in.  As someone (else) who has read most of Larson's work, including Evolution, I'd suggest not using Larson as the final word on the terminology of "Darwinism", "neo-Darwinism", "evolution", and "evolutionism".  Larson's Evolution is a synthesis of historical work, written for a popular audience, and he explicitly (p. 107) uses these terms in the ways he does to avoid confusion rather than maximize historical and/or contemporary precision in usage.  Furthermore, terminology has been historically and continues to be a part of the creation-evolution controversy itself (and to the history of evolutionary thought more broadly), so it seems like using the least-loaded synonyms is best.  Also, being a neutral, unbiased, reliable source is not the same as being an NPOV source.  With respect to Wikipedia, there is no such thing as an NPOV source; the neutral point of view is what we create on Wikipedia by presenting opposing views as views attributed to their sources.   Larson, and indeed any historian writing in his/her own voice, has a bit more freedom with language and tone than we should take in Wikipedia articles.  So, for example, Larson relies heavily on the terms "Darwinism" and "evolutionism" to emphasize the close parallel between creationists and evolutionists historically, and the religiosity (of sorts) of each side.  Outside of the context of Larson's book itself, it's easy to misinterpret the connotations Larson creates for such terms.
In general, I think the more this article and the other creationism articles can use work by professional historians and sociologists, the better.  Most sources used here are essentially primary sources, while a number of good secondary sources go unused  (including Larson's much more relevant Trial and Error, 3rd edition and Michael Ruse's The Evolution-Creation Struggle, and a host of peer-reviewed journal articles).--ragesoss 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Larson, terminology, and NPOV

message: I have to disagree.  This is the history of the controversy, and the specific sentence cut (see this diff) is an important part of the controversy (critical).  Without this, the controversy would be much different today.  Mind you, this is again from a reference of a critically acclaimed author who is largely viewed as being NPOV and a RS.  I am going to insert it back based on these reasons.  Please try to form a concensus if you honestly think I (and Larson) are wrong. StudyAndBeWise 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was wrong, I said it seemed out of place. There's a difference. Adam Cuerden talk 21:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence seems really out of place and random, so I'm cutting it.... 

message: I've trimmed it fairly severely - nothing, except those two sections we all agreed didn't really fit into the article, is lost (see History of the creation-evolution controversy), but the main article is much more reasonable in size. Adam Cuerden talk 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point us to your modification of Politics of creationism where you add th content to that article? I certainly can't see it. --Kristjan Wager 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the content expect the introduction is a raw copy of Ramifications of the controversy, starting with the Public education in the United States section. Terjen 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming 

message: I think this section could probably be cut and/or moved elsewhere with little loss. What d'ye think? Adam Cuerden talk 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differing Religious Opinions 

message: I suggest moving the three subsections of the Conflicts inherent to the controversy section to the top level of the article, eliminating the section itself. Terjen 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicts inherent to the controversy 

message: In short, Popper found evolution to not fit as a fully-falsifiable theory, in the way that, say, Newtonian Mechanics was - but found that it *WAS* the key to all biology, just as maths is the key to physics. This is hardly what is being implied by that juxtaposition.
I think I understand the distinction you're making here. I think you have a good point. This section makes Popper seem perhaps a bit more "anti-science" than you have described him in this sentence. (If that makes sense.) A distinction must be made between what Popper said and how others used what he said. I also find this sentence a bit confusing:
Creation scientists noted that Popper's statement stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution, and continued to argue that evolutionary origins failed to meet the falsifiability criteria.
I'd rather see a direct quote from a source there. It leaves one with the impression that Popper was a closet creation scientist. (Perhaps that is true, I'm just explaining how it reads.)  Right after this sentence would be a good place to clarify and refine exactly what Popper said, again, with a direct quote. 
::Good point: That's also extremely misleading. I've replaced that section with "Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that evolutionary theories regarding the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested." as cited in  However, as he did not reclassify it, creation scientists continued to argue that evolutionary origins failed to meet the falsifiability criteria."
In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping,"
This info should come later, it's sourced, but it seems no one can provide a name for the sociologist. It would be better to start this section with a neutral sentence from a source that can be named. futurebird 03:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the moment, I've removed it, until we can find an appropriate source. Worryingly, a google search for the term only returned a handful of hits, most of them Wikipedia clones: Better to leave it until we find a named source, or someone finds a good way to work it in. Adam Cuerden talk 05:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've moved it to just before introducting the creationist usage of Popper, starting off with a summary of Popper's views. Adam Cuerden talk 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: For the sake of a civil discussion, let me respond to the points you make regarding the section you deleted:
Adam's Statment                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           	StudyAndBeWise's Response
"...it leaves out most of the more important falsifiablities of evolution..."                                                                                                                                                                                                             	Do you not agree that it includes the most famous response, PreCambrian Rabbits?
"and, to some extent, misrepresents Popper, by letting one side put words in his mouth which he explicitly denies."                                                                                                                                                                       	Perhaps you midsed the (fully cited) part you cut that stated: 'Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."'
"This is inaccurate.  Metaphysical research program, science, and pseudoscience are three classifications in Popper's scheme."                                                                                                                                                            	Do we really need to get into the esoteric details of Popper's "Problem of Demarcation" in an article on the Creation-Evolution Controversy?  Is science versus non-science (including pseudo science and metaphysical research programs") all that inaccurate?  If so, how?
"It was openly metaphysical. In this context, it makes sense why a pro-evolutionist like Popper called Darwinism a metaphysical research program. It was no more falsifiable (he thought) than the view that mathematics describes the world, and it was just as basic to modern biology."	Popper wrote:  "The problem of finding a criterion which would enable us to distinguish between the empirical sciences on the one hand, and mathematics and logic as well as 'metaphysical' systems on the other, I call the problem of demarcation."  Your implication that Popper also classified mathematics as a metahysical research program is too much.  Instead of relying on your memory, or the writings of participants to the controversy, please refer to primary sources.
If I missed anything of import, let me know.  I will not respond to your other accusations.  If, on the other hand, you would respond to the important statements I made that deserve acknowledgement, I would appreciate it.  
1.  "This is NOT an article on biology. It is an article on a creation-evolution controversy."
2.  Do you think more than a list of one good example response to creationists falsifiability arguments is necessary?
StudyAndBeWise 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More comments

message: This is just a tentative contribution to the debate, but is Falsifiability valid as part of this article? I seem to recall that Popper's ideas were pretty thoroughly debunked by no less than Wittgenstein, who demonstrated that the whole concept of Falsifiability was invalid because it, itself, could not be falsified - and that Popper too turned his back on the concept eventually. I realise that modern science still relies to a large on the concept, and arguments have been made for both sides using it (making it worthy for inclusion as part of the historical debate). There perhaps should be some mention, though, that as a method of testing theories it is regarded by many as deeply flawed... and at this point I should really give a reference, but unfortunately I've returned the book where I read the above (Wittgenstein's Poker, David Edmonds & John Eidinow, Faber & Faber, , can't remember the page!) EyeSereneTALK 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems of Falsifiability

message: There seem to be more detailed sources in Russian about this, unfortunately, I don't know any Russian so I can't use them. Hopefully someone else who can read Russian could help out? JoshuaZ 19:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More for a worldwide perspective 

message: Really, just like LaRouche cult members are banned from certain articles, those who like to use talkorigins, an anonymous archive of USENET, as reliable sources, should be banned from editing this article.  
::::TCMike 13:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You remind me of someone.  Hmmmmm.  It'll come to me.  First of all, Talk.origins is hardly a cult, despite your rantings to the contrary.  Secondly, it is not an anonymous archive of USENET.  Everything written has verifiable sources.  It summarizes and gives references to counter nearly every creationist claim.  About the only accusation that holds water with respect to Talk.origins is that they make countering Creationist irrationality quite easy.  They did all the hard work in organizing, writing, and finally verifying the data.  Talk.origins is one of the best Evolution sites on the internet, and if they converted the site into a book, it would be a scholary printing that could be used by biology courses worldwide.  You really need to relax Mike.  Further comments like that are going to lessen your impact on the community.  This is your nice counsel and advice.  Keep this up, and several others will be much more harsh.  Orangemarlin 13:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the Archive is not anonymous but has names associated with almost everything in it, including a number of biologists and other experts in their relevant fields. Furthermore, the archive has been recognized by Scientific American among other science media sources, and has been listed as a useful resource by the Smithsonian Institute and the National Academy of Science, among others. JoshuaZ 15:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you, a T.O cultist?  Don't you know that Scientific American and the NAS are just front organisations for the cult of T.O?  Don't you know that all biologists have been brainwashed by Nicolae Carpathia (except for the handful of True Believers who have been divinely protected and can see past the brainwashing?  Guettarda 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, how do I get help?  I know that I've been a member of this cult for a long time, and I've been brainwashed by it.  Can you help me?  I've been enabled by the Communist Party and their band of Evolutionary Scientists, and it's time to find the truth.  Please help.  Orangemarlin 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Marx loves you! (for extra fun, check out the back cover in the printable version) Adam Cuerden talk 18:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TalkOrigins Cult Members should be banned 

message: I came accross this.  As you read it, try to guess who wrote it:
and 
Did you guess Popper?  Did you guess Larson?  Did you guess Darwin?  Did you guess Carl Sagan?
The answer is here.  Darwin's Bulldog.  StudyAndBeWise 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant. Evolution has been exposed to numerous tests and verifications. Only Popper's more subtle, philosophical classification scheme is relevant. Adam Cuerden talk 05:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not relevant to the article, but it is interesting how an idea that was at least mentioned by Huxley, was written about carefully by Popper, later abused by Creationists, was ultimately what did them in an a court case.  StudyAndBeWise 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationist, Evolutionist, or disinterested third party 

message: Moving on from the recent controversy, I think this article is getting near the stage where Peer review would be beneficial, followed by an FA nomination. (Though there's a bit of citing to do first) What does everyone else think, and would a GA nomination be appropriate after citing up? Adam Cuerden talk 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: this report has among other things the acceptance rates of evolution in Denmark, France, Germany, Austria, Britain, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the US. The article also contains a fair bit of comparison of the trends in the different countries. JoshuaZ 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful source for international issues 

message: I had to add fact tags to the first two sentences of the Debates section. They clearly appear to be unsourced, controversial, and arguably nonsensical in the case of the second sentence - almost as if a creationist POV-pusher were trying to goad scientists into a debate, but lost their train of thought halfway through. Anyway, here they are for your convenience (without tags):-
Many creationists and scientists are engaged in debate regarding creationism (intelligent design) and evolution. There is some disagreement within the scientific community as to whether letting a creationist audience learn about science is positive or whether it has the negative affect of giving the false impression that scientifically there is anything to debate about the creationist claimed "controversy."
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary verification. The claim that any portion of the scientific community opposes people learning about science is certainly... extraordinary. Didn't Sagan argue in "The Demon-Haunted World" that future generations might judge us harshly for allowing our children to grow up ignorant?
If there are no objections, I think it might be best to just cut them out and let the rest of the section stand on its own.
SheffieldSteel 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is worded well, but I think what is being said is that many scientists do not feel that public debates are a useful way to counter creationists.  Debates are more about emotion and tactics than about actually discussing the issues.  The lengthy and complicated arguments from scientists are not well suited to the debating arena.  I would suggest trying to reword the passage rather than deleting it.  There is also the feeling, among some scientists, that "debating" with creationists accords an unwarranted equality, in the public eye, to the Creationists.  I cannot source this info, right now, but I have seen discussions of it in Skeptical Inquirer, as well as in T.O.  Boomcoach 18:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input, Boomcoach. I'm certainly familiar with the points you've raised. Let's see what others have to say. SheffieldSteel 00:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "There is some disagreement within the scientific community as to whether openly debating self-described creation scientists would serve a purpose or would merely serve to lend an appearance of legitimacy to what they have frequently described as pseudoscience."
How would this work?  Oh, and by the way, I'm much more comfortable with "scientists" than "evolutionists", since the latter seems to be more often used in a pejorative manner these days.  But then, YMMV.  Kasreyn 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion Kasreyn; I quite agree. SheffieldSteel 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact tags added to Debates 

message: There really should be a section explaining the continuum of beliefs in this debate. These beliefs are Young Earth Creationism; Old Earth Creationism which includes Gap Creationism, Day-Age Creationism, and Progressive Creationism; Theistic Evolution / Naturalistic Evolution. Pbarnes 05:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section: Viewpoint Summaries

message: ::::I think we should use the term 'atheist' as carefully as we would use a term denoting religious affiliation, such as Jewish or Catholic. In particular, 'outspoken atheist' is too strong because it is POV. If Dawkins describes himself that way in the book under discussion, then OK, but it's not likely he calls himself 'outspoken'. Note that even our article on Graham Greene is careful enough not to describe him as 'Catholic' in the opening sentence, even though religion is a major theme of his fiction. Our article on Jonathan Littell does not emphasize his connection to Judaism until halfway down the page, even though he writes about the history of the Jews in Europe. So we can be discreet and judicious when we need to. The 'outspoken atheist' jumps out at you like it's waving a flag, we are labelling the man, and I think it's unnecessary in this context. Thanks to SheffieldSteel for the version that exists now (at least temporarily, until the next revert). EdJohnston 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'd point out that editors of the Richard Dawkins article thought it useful to devote one of the three paragraphs in the intro to describing him as an "outspoken atheist."  The other two paragraphs said his name and said he was a prominent biologist.  Clearly those editors thought "outspoken atheist" was an important part of his identity.  If a prominent Lutheran evangelist was identified as such before being quoted for his book "The Evolution Delusion," I hardly think there'd be such an uproar about mentioning his religious beliefs.  What's POV about it?  Why is the evolutionary biologist label not equally objectionable?   Gnixon 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see a consensus here that 'outspoken atheist' should be included. I know that votes are evil, but it might come to that, if anyone truly thinks that 'outspoken atheist' is generally supported. EdJohnston 22:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree I've been the only one of 4 editors supporting that phrase, and I'm not going to insist on it if there's no support, but I really think I'm being reasonable here, and I can't understand why others don't agree.  If I seem annoyingly persistent, it's just because I feel like I'm failing to make a point that should be clear to any impartial observer.  The presence or absence of this little phrase is hardly going to make or break the article, but I think it's representative of a broader problem of systemic bias that *is* very damaging to the article.  Gnixon 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Gnixon, I think we're all convinced that Dawkins is an atheist.  That's not the point.  It is highly pejorative to describe him as such, when nearly every Creationist is convinced that every person who believes in Evolution is almost by definition an atheist.  It is a negative POV that demeans his studies of evolution.  That's why I disagree with the description.  Orangemarlin 22:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "when nearly every Creationist is convinced that every person who believes in Evolution is almost by definition an atheist" very misinformed. most Christians, Catholics, Islams, and Hindus accept evolution.  More than one pope has decreed that evolution is true. I think it was Pius, John Paul and the present one.  68.109.234.155 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I know we all agree he's an atheist.  I don't intend to suggest that because Dawkins is an atheist, all who believe evolution are atheists.  I don't intend to demean his studies of evolution.  All I'm saying is that if we reference his evaluation of evolution *and* the existence of God, then it's useful to know *both* that he's a prominent, prolific, well-respected evolutionary biologist (not just some random biologist) *and* that he's an outspoken atheist (not just some guy who privately doesn't believe in God).  If he was just writing about biology, I would see no need to mention that he was an atheist, just like I wouldn't care what his favorite food is, and if he was just writing about God being a silly idea, I wouldn't care if he was a biologist.  These are basic, universally accepted, widely understood principles of attribution that any journalist would agree with.  Why is there some special exception in this case?  Gnixon 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 3

message: What if we cut most of the material after the hostory sections, saving the few salvagable ones, and rewrote from there? As it is, the very structure of the article has POV problems, as it's section after section on creationist attacks on evolution, with no or little scientific rebuttal, and this won't change without radical changes. Adam Cuerden talk 05:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any personal objection to this (though some may express policy objections to it). I would however strongly suggest that we immediately put in place the skeleton of a structure/hierarchy for the replacement article to follow. Otherwise, there's a good chance that the replacement will simply evolve into a similar incoherent POV mess. I think the sections on 'Theory vs. fact' & 'Quote mining' should be salvageable. Hrafn42 07:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: See . The article also is helpful in synthesizing a number of observations about the movement internationally. I don't have time right now to add it in, but it looks like it could be very helpful. JoshuaZ 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in the economist, may be useful for the non-American creationism.