Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 3

message: Would whoever added the newsweek poll care to justify its NPOV?
P.s. If you add up the percentages you get 100%, you should get less, as there are people who don't answer, haven't decided, or don't have an opinion. CheeseDreams 19:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean it's accuracy, it's relevence or its NPOV status?  194.222.190.174 19:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You only get 100% for the scientists (who presumably didn't want to say "don't know" to such a question!). For "everyone" the total is 93%, so presumably the other 7% were "don't know". As far as I'm concerned religioustolerance.org is a well-respected site. They say the poll was published in Newsweek and was conducted by Gallup, with a sample size of 1,000 (which is perfectly standard). They also cite a published paper analysing the data from the poll by a Professor of Political Science at the University of Cincinnati. I didn't add the data, but that seems pretty NPOV to me. I think the introduction is much better with that data there- hopefully we can add more such data to this article. --G Rutter 12:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsweek poll 

message: I am quite concerned with this page in reference to the NPOV rules.  My main problems with the page as it currently stands are:
1) It contains statements which assert creationist viewpoints as fact.
2) The phrase evolutionist should be replaced with "main stream scientists" as it is not just those working on evolutionary theory that hold "Evolutionist beliefs" but the great majority of scientists.
3) There are a couple of long sections containing many creationist assertions which are not matched by evolutionist's counter assertions.  (Admitedly there is an issue of presentation on the page here)
I am concerned that we need more knowledgable scientists editing this and similar pages to provide the counter arguments.  I shall try to get some of my scientist friends interested.  This article should not be a soap box for pseudoscience.  194.222.190.174 19:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: hi again:).  i welcome all the mainstream scientists you can bring on -- let's figure things out:)!  and i'd welcome a more npov alternative to "evolutionist" if you can come up with a more npov alternative to "creationist."  But please, as we're doing it, shall we let the facts speak for themselves, instead of appealing to majority and authority and accusations of "crackpot science?"  those knives slice both ways, and just leave everybody bloody.  Ungtss 23:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Working towards NPOV

message: The old introduction gave no information, but spun the truth. This is not NPOV. The new intro actually defines the debate; who it is between who starts it and what the motives are of the debators. It would be POV to present any of the actual arguments here. 
:The creation vs. evolution debate is a debate provoked by biblically-literal creationists who debate against the theory of evolution. They believe the theory of evolution conflicts with the bible. They subsequently argue with supporters of the theory evolution about the validity of this scientific theory. A common misconception is that supporters of the theory of evolution debate against creation, or against creationists. This is incorrect; supporters of evolution merely defend the validity of the theory of evolution. Bensaccount 20:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  you're amazing, smart-guy.  look at this.  .  That's a whole site dedicated to teaching evolutionists how to debate creationists.  Ungtss 21:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  very persuasive, as always:).  you said evolutionists do not debate creationists.  i showed you they do.  a lot.  you're wrong.  make fun of stupid christians all you want, the facts are still the facts.  Ungtss 21:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  you have got to be KIDDING me.  justify your POSITION, smartguy.  this is just vandalism unless you can provide some justification.  Ungtss 21:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  basic logic, smartguy.  you said evolutionists do not debate creationists.  you are WRONG, smartguy, and the link i gave you showed it, if you had bothered to read it.  instead, you sent me a stupid christian link that didn't address the issue, ignored my comment, and asked for backup.  THINK, smartguy.  there IS a debate, the stats are from an EVOLUTIONIST site and NEWSWEEK, and are ACCURATE.  this is VANDALISM.  Ungtss 21:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: your intro is FACTUALLY INCORRECT, smartguy.  the previous one was through CONSENSUS and was backed with CITES.  i will not stop reverting, because you STILL have not addressed the factually inaccuracy of your intro, and it is therefore vandalism.  you need to tell me why you think it's justified to cut out cited statistics and replace them with statements like "evolutionists do not debate against creationists."  Ungtss 21:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: i welcome any admin to come in and decide whether or not you vandalized the page repeatedly with your own pov.  Ungtss 21:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: i appreciate your time:).  Ungtss 22:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would recommend User:Ungtss reads both Wikipedia:Three revert rule and Wikipedia:Civility. Having said that, I believe the earlier lead section (as here) is preferable, but could do with work. — Matt Crypto 22:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: <<The creation vs. evolution debate is a debate provoked by biblically-literal creationists who debate against the theory of evolution. They believe the theory of evolution conflicts with the bible. They subsequently argue with supporters of the theory of evolution about the validity of this scientific theory. A common misconception is that supporters of the theory of evolution debate against creation, or against creationists. This is incorrect; supporters of evolution merely defend the validity of the theory of evolution.>>
This is incorrect!  :))  Where do you get the idea that the debate is provoked by biblically-literal creationists?  All the scholarly analysis of empirical data I have seen indicates that the published scholarly opinion is that the debate is not provoked by biblically-literal creationists.  Is this paragraph the result of your personal research?  If you are referring to some obscure publication, could you provide a reference to that obscure publication?  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: we ALL agree on that.  your intro is factually inaccurate because it says that evolutionists do not debate creationists; only creationists debate evolutionists.  Ungtss 22:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: * Biblically-literal?  I don't think so.  Theistic evolutionists surely are not biblically-literal.  Literally, the Bible says "And on the seventh day. . . ."  I dare say there is not one theistic evolutionist who thinks that it was done in literally "six days." :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: * Nope.  Cite me please a published scholar who said such a ridulous thing!  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: You are caricaturing the debate.  Whilst most of the people saying evolution is wrong believe that God created the earth, one of their arguments for it being wrong is that the evidence is against it.  And in many cases of creationists that are former evolutionists, it is the evidence that has convinced them that evolution is wrong. Philip J. Rayment 12:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixing the intro