Talk:Evolution controversy

message: A few too many colloquialisms ("throwing a monkey wrench into the works" et.al.) Needs to be cleaned up a bit. Al 15:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: I have made exactly three reverts in a 24 hour period, and now I must call it quits for the day. See you tomorrow!
All kidding aside, this article is an attempt to start fresh on the evolution vs. creation controversy. The old article just isn't up to snuff and seems beyond repair.
There is nothing wrong with starting over. The new one can infuse life into the old one, or the old one can have a few details copied over; anything can happen. Rival versions can co-exist for a couple of weeks, it's not going to hurt anything. Uncle Ed 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ed - wouldn't it have made more sense to attempt this is a temp subpage of the original article?  Guettarda 19:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The 3RR rule

message: Joshuaschroeder is right, there's nothing to merge. 90% of this article is original research and unscholarly musings and is thus unsalvageable. 
I move to immediately redirect. 
All in favor, respond "Support", those opposed, "Oppose". FeloniousMonk 19:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are POV pushing Moonie party line. That's apparent. Very similar to Jonathan Wells. Your writing does not withstand scrutiny and these articles deserve deletion. Joshuaschroeder 01:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: In response to objections that characterization as "original research", it is instructive to review the first sentence of the policy No original research.
:Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what the sources say.
Further:
:This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable.
To take one part of the article as an example, I have quoted below the setion "Motivation and methodology", and interspersed comments.  For each statement, consider the fact that it is not sourced (as well as whether it likely could be sourced and attibuted):
:Some thinkers start with a premise and try to come up with a theory which supports this premise while being consistent with observed facts.
:: Not really problematic as it does not claim much—"Some thinkers" is quite vague.  However, keep in mind: Avoid weasel terms.
:Atheists, tending to embrace materialism, generally begin from the viewpoint that there is no God and that natural forces and laws govern all.
::Statement is overly broad, given the diversity of viewpoints that may be labelled "athiest".  Conflates atheism and materialism.  Source?
:"Science is sovereign", they say, meaning that only the material world exists and that science should concern itself only with discovering the natural laws which govern the material world.
::Who said this?  So far as I can tell, Pope Paul VI said, "science is sovereign in its field," but the quote is being attributed to athiests at large.  Also, Pope Paul VI was not widely believed to be atheist.
:Religious adherents profess believe [sic] in God (whether as genuine faith or for some pragmatic purpose), and they begin from the viewpoint that God created all matter and life.
::NPOV/systematic bias problem equating religious adherence with Abrahamic monotheism and creation ex nihilo.  Buddhist beliefs are probably the most distinct and widespread counterexample.
:Their claim is that God intervenes from time to time in the material world. Generally, though, they accept that after a time of intervention, God allows the results to follow natural laws. For example, after creating the sun and the planets, God does not move them around Himself, but allows momentum and gravity to move them in the elliptical paths observed by astronomers.
::Again, attribution of these beliefs to "religious adherents" in general appears to be too broad to support.  Needs to be more specifically attributed. [Sidenote, from MoS regarding "Himself": Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, do not begin with a capital letter.]
:A completely open-minded approach is rare.
::Verifiable?  Source?  Or does it belong to opinion and personal observation?
:Thinkers usually begin with a conclusion and then seek to justify it, so it is hard to find anyone who begins with the observed facts and then looks for a hypothesis which can explain these facts.  The tendency is to pick a hypothesis which conforms either to atheism or religous [sic] belief and then go from there.
::Verifiable?  Source?  Also, continuation of broad stereotypes of "athiesm" and "religious belief."
:These two schools of thought (or opposing camps) sometimes express their arguments in terms of a search for a hypothesis which can be fitted to the facts, but it is not remarkable that their arguments always reach the foreordained conclusion.
::Appears to be just a tautology, because the conclusion a particular thinker reaches is used to define which "school of thought" or "opposing camp" that thinker belongs to.  Source?
--Tabor 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[WP:NOR|No original research]], [[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]], etc. 

message: People For the American Way says:
:How familiar are people with “Creationism” and “Evolution”? Are all Americans using the same definitions? 
I think this is important because when we say that X percent of Americans (or English-speakers, etc.) "believe in evolution"  it's probably not at all clear what this means. I bet the phrasing of evolution poll questions is important, too. Uncle Ed 21:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions again