Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 9

message: I've suggested that this new article be merged here. Please weigh in with your opinions there. FeloniousMonk 17:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Already merged. The article is poorly written and most of its content is found on pages related to this one. Joshuaschroeder 18:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not merged yet. But if any of its content can be found on related pages, please show me exactly where. That will help me prove that it's not "original research", which was another complaint. It can't be both redundand and original. Uncle Ed 00:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Evolution_controversy]]

message: #The debate is conducted primarily by Christian and Muslim adherents.
#*Actually, at least half of the debate is conducted by atheists and other advocates of naturalistic evolution
#*: Actually, it's mainly conducted by creationists shouting a lot.  Scientists tend to deliberately ignore them as arguing with them gives them some appearnce of legitimacy and there being a "controversy" which they can shout about a bit more.  Also, it isn't atheists versus Christians, it's fundamentalist Christians versus everyone else.  The major churches all accept evolution.  There are a number of evolutionary biologists who have religious beliefs and see no contradiction. Dunc|☺ 18:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this article does address that when it deals with the appeal to authority. There is a difference between what individual scientists believe and what mainstream science is. Joshuaschroeder 06:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors in this article

message: Does the user who inserted the comment about the use of the term "evidences" have a citation to its use? The first hit on Google for the term "evidences" is Theobald's essay (hardly creationist -- but maybe a parody on creationist use of evidences). Anyway, we need to be a bit more rigorous in our citation of this if we are to include it in the article. Joshuaschroeder 07:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidences

message: Cut from intro:
:The opposing viewpoints are understandings of origins based on scientific investigation on the one hand and various religious viewpoints on the other.
I feel that "understandings ... based on scientific investigation" implies something which is not true. Or at best is confusing.
1. Unless it is common knowledge that scientific investigation always presupposes the POV that God does not exist and that there is only a material world. If that's how science works (and what science takes as a given), then the sentence is fine - and should go back.
But Wikipedia doesn't have an article on scientific investigation. There's not even a redirect. I think this means that the presuppositions of science are not so common as some contributors have assumed.
:Not so common in most venues, but in the context of this "controversy" the discussion is about the scientific method and philosophical naturalism. Take your beef up with those pages as here is not the place to discuss what science is or isn't -- except to point out that creationists have views that are different from the mainstream. Joshuaschroeder 18:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apples and oranges. You are conflating observation with scientific theory. The two may be related, but they are not one and the same. Joshuaschroeder 18:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't rely so much of Sagan. He was an astronomer/skeptic, but he was not the arbiter of science for all those who support evolutionists in the controversy. Joshuaschroeder 18:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As is pointed out int he article, the views are derived from understandings -- they aren't the understandings themselves. We worked a long time to come up with the NPOV that this article intro now has. Please read the archives (I get the impression that you haven't). Joshuaschroeder 18:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro again

message: I'm baffled by :Category:Evolution polls.  A single poll may well be a good source for this article, but having an article (much less more than one) about a single poll seems odd.  I've raised the question on Category talk:Evolution polls about whether such articles should exist.  Friday (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My only reason for creating the category is so that I don't lose track of all the "poll" articles before they are merged. It's temporary. Uncle Ed 01:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for individual polls? 

message: Joshua, when you read the term public sphere, do you think primarily of the distinction between (1) thoughts that a person has by himself, in the privacy of his own mind and (2) ideas which are discussed "in public", out loud, between different individuals or groups?
Or are you perhaps trying to make a distinction between:
*discussions taking place only within the scientific community about whether things like evolution are true; and,
*discussions taking place between scientists and laymen, scientists and religious folks, or even between "those morons who just don't get it (i.e., Creationist slime) and us fine fellows who do (i.e., people who understand science and therefore accept its findings)?
I ask, because the beginning of the Public sphere article didn't seem like it was expressing anything that pertained to the intor of this article. Uncle Ed 18:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a distinction between public and private which pertains not just to individuals but also to groups. The point is that the controversy is public. --Joshuaschroeder 18:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you trying to say that this is a discussion that is not found in the halls of academia but shows up on web sites, churches, education boards and the evening news? Alienus 21:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, well I've done it. I hope that my first edit to such a controversial topic doesn't turn out to be uncontroversial :-) William M. Connolley 21:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of [[public sphere]]

message: Whoever is editing this page really needs to take a look at Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context.  There are so many links in this article that it is ridiculous (and it also hurts readability).  --Cyde 01:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it happens when you have several editors working on an article. I took a bunch out... mostly having to do with linking science, or creationism. - RoyBoy 800 05:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job, you removed a lot of braindead links ... but I can't help but think that there are still a lot more that need to go, too.  I'll take a look at it later when I have some free time.  --Cyde 02:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is way overlinked 

message: No offense to those that prefer the term "faith based"  to "parochial" or "religious" to describe schools that provide a religious education, but the term really sets my teeth on edge.  I view the term "faith based" as a smoke screen used by certain American Christians to disguise the fact that they want to promote their political agenda in public schools or have public funds used to support organizations with a similar political agenda.  See Discovery Institute for examples of a political agenda promoted by a "faith based" organization.  I would prefer to have a less political term used in the article that more accurately describes the situation in England. --Nowa 12:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about your teeth, I do understand it's something you're very sensitive about in the Americas. As you'll see from The Guardian, 23 August 2005, Two thirds oppose state aided faith schools it's become rather a common term in Britain. More clarification at parochial school. I've tried to put a euphemism in here to avoid offending your sensibilities, but you should note that parochial and parish school means something rather different here, being an old term for many normal primary schools which have been secular for years, and "secular schools" still have a vicar or school chaplain being boring at school assemblies. BTW, I do of course take offence at offense. ...dave souza 22:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave,  Thanks for the clarification.  I like the wording you have. --Nowa 02:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand about taking offence at offense, but what about a fence?--Nowa 02:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sitting on it.....dave souza 10:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parochial vs "Faith Based"

message: :The debate continues to be actively promoted and maintained by a number of creationist organizations and religious groups who desire to uphold creationism
Didn't PBS do a 10-part series on evolution a couple of years ago? I gather the series was very pro-evolution. One of the parts even addressed religion.
Would that series be considered part of the debate? Or a "response" to public pressure from creationists? Or what? Uncle Ed 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One can make an argument that the media is also in part to blame for continuing the debate. This is addressed in the article. The context of the sentence you pulled out is that the creationist organizations and the religious groups actively promote and maintain the debate. It's not meant to be an exclusive sentence and doesn't come across that way if you read the context and the rest of the article. --ScienceApologist 07:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You're making the mistake of assuming the PBS documentary series was taking a stand one way or the other.  Frankly, it wasn't weighing in on the "controversy" at all ... it was just presenting the facts of science, like good scientific documentaries do.  You wouldn't consider a Christopher Columbus documentary weighing in against the flat-earthers, would you?  Sometimes a documentary is just a documentary.  --Cyde Weys [u]  [t]  [c] 07:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who's debating whom?

message: I removed the Scott Adams link someone just added to the main article with the edit summary, "He's not only a cartoonist, he's a philosopher".  He may be a cartoonist but he sure as hell isn't a philosopher.  I've read some of his "philosophy" books (like God's Debris) and they are so vacuous and ignorant of the facts it is astounding.  The link text was also "A Neutral Viewpoint On This Controversy", which is not true.  Scott Adams sure as hell doesn't have a neutral viewpoint.
The best response to Scott Adams nonsense articles on "intelligent design" are by PZ Myers ... he's not a cartoonist or a philosopher, he's actually a biologist.  See that linked article and you'll understand why Scott Adams simply has no knowledge on the issues at hand, and since he really doesn't know what he's talking about, it shouldn't be linked from the page.
--Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disagreeing with removing him, but it's not a valid argument that Adams' writings shouldn't be linked to because his opinions are wrong.  This would require us to decide who's right or wrong, which isn't something we do here.  Friday (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Scott Adams should be removed because as an admitted non-expert in the subject his opinions are not relevent to the article. --ScienceApologist 16:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying his opinions are wrong (well, they are too...) but that his facts are wrong.  On Wikipedia we don't link to pages which are full of false information.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Scott Adams link