Talk:Evolutionism/Archive 1

message: like many -isms does this indicate a faith-based system?  Should it read:
:Proponents of evolutionism subscribe to the theory of evolution as a faith and consider creationist ideas false without inquiry.
--MichaelTinkler  (who'd like to write a page about 'scientism', but isn't up to the /talk section.)
:(just a random note, I think you mean rationalism, which already has an entry. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Like many -isms, [[Evolutionism]] needs a name

message: I'm in favour of abolishing this entry entirely, myself. -- AV
-----
Drumbicalism is a first rate example.  However, the 2 generation clause may not be true.  Lord knows Marxism has been around for a while, and it is still subject to eye-rolling.  Of course the Anglo-American problem is the belief that "common-sense" (i.e., everything opposed to all -ism designated belief systems) is not a belief system itself...  --MichaelTinkler
-----
Who uses the term "evolutionism"?  I have never heard it used before.  Is it used by creationists to characterize their opponents?  If so I think the article should say so. --Eob
:I believe so. (Pun not intended.) I have never seen the term evolutionism or evolutionist in any other context. It seems to be used to somehow level the playing field, since the discussion between creationists and evolutionists—creationism vs. evolutionism—sounds much better than Creation vs. the theory of evolution, which would sound strictly like religion vs. science. Also using the term theory of creation would never be used by anyone who says that evolution is “only a theory”—and rightly so, since not being a theory in the sense of scientific method would inevitably imply that it must be a theory in the informal sense, meaning speculation. The unfortunate creation science is used  but rarely, probably because it sounds like an oxymoron, and feels somehow ironic in its proper context. Personally, I find the usage and genesis of evolutionism (again, pun not intended) quite interesting and I think it would be very important to thoroughly explain if there is going to be an article on evolutionism. In any case, I don’t really mind if people call me an evolutionist, as long as they also remember to call me a gravitationist, electromagnetist, quantum mechanic and special relativity theoretician. Rafał Pocztarski 19:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Evolutionism]] should NOT be a separate page

message: So how is the page Evolutionism different from Evolution and different from Creationism and different from Darwinism and different from Cultural evolution?  What content or analysis would be on Evolutionism that would be on none of those other pages?  ---Rednblu 17:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That it is identified by creationists as a religion (although they sometimes use the word Darwinism, though that page refers to Darwinian process) and the Peluga court case is justification enough.  It is unlikely to be linked to by someone meaning biological evolution; that would be inherently POV and be pointing at the wrong page.  There have been requests at talk:evolution for an "evolution as a religion" page.  And following the principle of self-identification, it would be wrong to put information on atheism etc here; it is right that it points to such pages, someone researching the subject may type evolutinoism into the search bar; in that way it acts as a dismabig page, but it is not quite a disambiguation page because it contains useful information.  I suppose you might want to reinstate the  notice in the anthropology section.  Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: How about the following as a scaffolding against which a worthwhile Evolutionism page could be constructed?  From a religion-neutral viewpoint, religion contains one important element of science--explanation.  However, science goes one step further and requires that the explanations of science be verifiable--and must survive the verification.  Would you agree with me that during the lifetime of Darwin, "evolution" replaced "religion" as the dominant explanation?  But even if "evolution" replaced "religion" as the dominant explanation, that does not make "evolution" a "religion."  Nonetheless, I think it would be a good idea for evolutionists to deal honestly with the way that Charles Darwin imported into his Sixth Edition of Origin of Species the term "evolution" for the first time with the clear understanding that from then on "evolution" and "natural selection" were to replace the Creator.  This does not make Evolutionism a Religion; rather Evolutionism is a better explanation than Religion for people who require the explanation to be verifiable, verified, and repeatably demonstrable. --Rednblu 20:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Though I would not expect any creationist to be religion-neutral, I would like to think that an evolutionist could be--where by evolutionist I mean simply someone putting their bets on "evolution" rather than "religion" as the explanation.  After all, "religion" seems to be a common human hunger, and if "evolution" is the explanation, then "evolution" is the source of even the human hunger for "religion."  Accordingly, for the Evolutionism page, "religion" might be just an inherited intuitive explanation. ]  ---Rednblu 23:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this page significant? 

message: "Philosopher of science Michael Ruse has more recently come to the conclusion that evolution is ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions."
The article says no such thing - I inserted a link. The Michael Ruse sentence above is not true (at least if it refers to this article) and should be removed. Is this just another typically dishonest creationist strategy?
: I agree that it should be removed, but not because it is incorrect. He does actually say that. However, this article is not the right place for a sentence like this! The philosphical basis of all knowledge would have to be discussed to bring this statement in proper perspective. Awolf002 11:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Ruse

message: This page should be merged with Creationism and Theory of Evolution.
The essence of this page seems to condense down to the single sentence
"Creationists refer to supporters of the Theory of Evolution as Evolutionism, seeking to treat it as a belief, rather than scientific theory". 
In addition, the existence of this page seems non NPOV.
Therefore, for these two reasons, I have made this page a candidate for speedy deletion. CheeseDreams 20:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation 

message: I cut the following questionable paragraph here because the following paragraph is irrelevant to the Evolutionism page. The Evolutionism page is not about the Creation vs. evolution debate.
: <<Philosopher of science Michael Ruse has more recently come to the conclusion that evolution is ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions.>>
I think you have in mind a speech that Michael Ruse gave to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1993.  In my opinion, what he was talking about is irrelevant to the Evolutionism page.  If you get the whole speech and analyze it, I believe your analysis would be relevant to the Creation vs. evolution debate page.  Would you agree?  ---Rednblu | Talk 08:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The VFD page is veering towards making this page about the term as used in cultural anthropology, and moving all of the stuff about creationism to the Creation vs evolution debate page.  Whether or not we agree on that I definitely agree that the above sentence has nothing to do with "Evolutionism" in any form and would, if it belongs on wikipedia at all, be best on C vs e debate.  Joe D (t) 12:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Ruse 1993 AAAS speech 

message: <copied from VFD>
Why is that page discussing usage of a word? Isnt that the purpose of entries in Wiktionary (and disambiguation pages) instead?
I don't see why sections on "Sampling of use of Evolutionism" and the like should constitute a valid encyclopedia article.
What remains afterward is
*one or two paragraphs about the use of the term by creationists 
::this could be moved to the Creation vs. evolution debate page 
*a few quotes about evidence for evolution used by darwin 
::this could be moved to Evolution 
*a dictionary etymology 
::this should be moved to the Wiktionary 
*discussion of one or two theories of albiogenesis etc. before Evolution 
::this should be moved to a new article such as Early non-biblical theories of albiogenesis (but with a better title). 
Who agrees? CheeseDreams 01:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I would like to see what other people say. Also see the history of this talk page. At least one other person than the two of us has commented today. CheeseDreams 23:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of the Recent Adjustment of the Evolutionism Page 

message: [Is "evolutionism" used by creationists to characterize their opponents?] I believe so. (Pun not intended.) I have never seen the term evolutionism or evolutionist in any other context. It seems to be used to somehow level the playing field, since the discussion between creationists and evolutionists—creationism vs. evolutionism—sounds much better than Creation vs. the theory of evolution, which would sound strictly like religion vs. science. Also using the term theory of creation would never be used by anyone who says that evolution is “only a theory”—and rightly so, since not being a theory in the sense of scientific method would inevitably imply that it must be a theory in the informal sense, meaning speculation. The unfortunate creation science is used  but rarely, probably because it sounds like an oxymoron, and feels somehow ironic in its proper context. Personally, I find the usage and genesis of evolutionism (again, pun not intended) quite interesting and I think it would be very important to thoroughly explain if there is going to be an article on evolutionism. In any case, I don’t really mind if people call me an evolutionist, as long as they also remember to call me a gravitationist, electromagnetist, quantum mechanic and special relativity theoretician. Rafał Pocztarski 19:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too that Evolutionism is used almost exclusively as a derogatory term, and still do not think it justifies a seperate page, neither for its dictionary definition/etymology (Move to wiktionary) or its use as a derogatory term (move to Evolution vs. creation debate or Creationism, or both). CheeseDreams 19:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage and context of "evolutionism"

message: The vfd debate related to this article may be found at Talk:Evolutionism/delete -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 14:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Evilgelical Christians is not a title but a (perhaps unfortunate) redirect to Fundamentalist Christianity article.   I think that “Either both titles are removed or both remain” ultimatum is incorrect no matter what is you personal opinion on either of those articles (or redirect names) and on the deletion thereof. People interested in science (evolution) and those interested in religion (Fundamentalist Christianity) are not exactly the same people, so even if the two issues you present were identical—which they are not—demanding a consistent result of voting from two different sets of people would be forgetting that votes for deletion are not cast by a single group of judges, but by any user interested in a given subject and dispute. Rafał Pocztarski 13:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Secular Creationists? Do they actually exist? CheeseDreams 23:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  “Secular creationists” is an oxymoron so obviously no, they do not actually exist—by definition. That having been clarified, the people interested in debates over scientific articles and those interested in debates over religious ones—as well as people participating in voting regarding the deletion of Evolutionism and Fundamentalist Christianity, respectively—are not the same people nevertheless, as Talk:Evolutionism and Talk:Fundamentalist Christianity—as well as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Evolutionism and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fundamentalist Christianity, for that matter—seem to demonstrate rather well. Rafał Pocztarski 02:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The only people who know Evilgelical Christians exists are people who have read Talk:Evolutionism after I mentioned it. As far as I can tell. I only created it to proove a point. CheeseDreams 21:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: * Interesting! 8)) Let me do some original research :)) on the comparisons you suggest.  Nice observation.  Nice puzzle. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are trying to point out that there are no VfD for Fundamentalist Christianity, then yes, that was my point. Please keep the context in mind—it’s related to the “Either both titles are removed or both remain” ultimatum, which I find incorrect even though there are no secular creationists (which was supposedly an argument against my original point). Please also note that I have not casted my vote regarding the deletion of evolutionism, so it was meant as neither argument for deletion, nor a one against it. I have no strong views about a separate article. I only think that it might be important to write about the usage and context of the term evolutionism if we are going to write about it, either on Wikipedia or in the Wiktionary. Rafał Pocztarski 12:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have absolutely no objection what soever to usage and context of the term evolutionism as an article title. However, I would strongly recommend that it ought to be in Wiktionary (as is clearly suggested by the phrase "usage and context of the term"). CheeseDreams 21:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD debate 

message: === Support ===
#Move. CheeseDreams 21:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes to move page title to [[Usage and context of "evolutionism"]] 

message: #Move. CheeseDreams 21:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: #Keep, the idea is just sabotage.  And while were at it, slapping the "move to wiktionary" thing on it is not only absurd but downright childish.  ;Bear 06:38, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
#Keep, while I have problems with this page the move is anacronistic: "Discussion of usage and context" is implied by "having an encyclopedia article".  Why did you move it when there was clearly no concensus? Joe D (t) 12:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object 

message: I tried to nominate this page for deletion and got sent here. There is no such word as "Evolutionism" in Merriam-Webster on-line nor in my 1986 American Heritage Dictionary.  All the references on the bottom of the page are to creationist literature, which should be a clue (even to the clueless, such as Creationists) that there is no issue to be discussed here, except if the clueless want to talk to the clueless, for which purpose they ought not to use Wikipedia. The general concept being promoted, I gather, is that people who believe in evolution are following a creed, and the creationists want to tar this creed with other labels like materialism and atheism. This does not demonstrate that people who accept Darwin's theory and its descendents are athiests or materialists; it demonstrates that creationists are unable to understand how a person could accept evolution and worship God! It illustrates the narrowness, the stubbornness of these "crusaders," who have to force everyone into their restrictive channel of thought and belief.  Give it up! Let ordinary people live and believe in evolution and religion, or not, withuout trying to squeeze anyone who does not blindly follow you into the procrustean bed of atheism, materialism, and crassness. Pdn 02:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: VfD notice inappropriate as it links to the Archive Talk:Evolutionism/delete: "This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP."  Changed to Disputed tag so that debate takes place on this talk page. dave souza 11:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than deleting a VfD notice, shouldn't you rather fix the link?  I doubt VfD would succeed, but it might as well be handled properly.  Pdn has the right to nominate a page for deletiion.  Guettarda 12:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Such Nonsense 

message: "Evolutionism" and "evolutionist" are shibboleths used by religious cranks who have a problem with certain biological theories, nothing more.  REMOVE.
*Except when it's used by scholars, who are referring to a certain way of viewing the world that has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Novium (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bleargh.

message: Church position must have a prominent section IMO,  creationism being the main opponent. 
BTW I stumbled upon the following claim:
:John Paul II wrote a letter to the Pontificial Academy of Sciences in 1997 advising Vatican scientists (and Catholics at large) that the Church doesn’t have a problem with the scientific theory of evolution 
Any idea what exactly was this about? Mikkalai 17:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Evolution#Evolution_and_religion (plus the Talk archives) and Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church.  Guettarda 18:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

text: read the full letter ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 14:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Article should need some statements of Christian evolution-accepting and evolution-proponent stand points. Creationists are a small but loud society, most often fundamentalist anti-interpretative sects interspersed among diverse low church denominations. Said: Rursus 10:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church 

message: Leave comments here, but also feel free to play around a bit in my suggestion. --Ben 23:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I think the current second paragraph would confuse the reader when it comes to Anthropological evolutionism and Biological evolutionism. I find it sort of confuses the two. I'm going to think about it a bit and change it, but if anyone disagrees (or wants to change it themselves) let me know. Or if you disagree after I change it, write why here.--Ben 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthropology and Biology

message: I propose that as Jim62 has proposed, we roll back most of the article to its 2004 version: . I look at the long voluminous discussion and it just makes my eyes cross. Why do we need so much discussion of a basically nonsense term that is only used by a few eccentric creationists?--Filll 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major crapectomy

message: :I guess I am somewhat confused as the why people disagree with the term Evolutionist, or Evolutionism.  Anyone who believes in Christ is called a Christian.  So why not call someone who believes in Evolution an Evolutionist?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rg006 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And for the fact that "evolutionist" is considered a pejorative term, because it really is defined as a "belief" in evolution as much as there is a belief in G_d. I don't believe in Evolution, and I don't accept Evolution because of faith, opinion, conviction--I accept Evolution as a fact, because it has been subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, because of the substantial proof, and because a lot of people smarter than I have studied and accepted it. Evolution is not a doctrine, it is not a dogma, and it does not require faith to accept. Therefore, I am a scientist by trade, by education and by lifestyle. Evolutionist means nothing to me, and is not a word that any scientist would use to describe their understanding of that particular field of science.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To use a more direct comparison than Filll, look at how the term Islamist is used. JoshuaZ 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It's horrible that anyone should be labeled as an ist, like atomist which is clearly a creationist conspiracy.  What if there were people that believed in science and they thought that knowledge of how the natural world works was somehow the way to enlightenment and then eventually we labeled them as SCIENTISTS... oh, wait... oops.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Scientists" is not a pejorative term so your point fails. Sorry. Annoying username (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why evolutionist is "bad"

message: The article includes a section:
Ibn Miskawayh's al-Fawz al-Asghar and the Brethren of Purity's Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity (The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa) expressed evolutionary ideas on how species evolved from matter, into plants, and then animals, then apes, and then humans. English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812, while Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar were also available in European universities by the 19th century. These works likely had an influence on Charles Darwin, who was a student of Arabic, and his inception of Darwinism.
It is unclear to me how the sources indicate that Darwin was likely influenced by The Brethren of Purity work. Also, no sources are given which describe Darwin as a scholar of Arabic. This bit is also included in the Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Purity article almost verbatim. Thus it is a bit suspect in my view, unless better sources emerge. Perhaps this section should be removed. 69.15.214.217 14:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Darwin and The Brethren of Purity 

message: I removed the following line:
These works likely had an influence on Charles Darwin, who was a student of Arabic, and his inception of Darwinism.
Since I haven't been able to find anything that supports this statement. If anyone else can find a reliable source that supports its claims then please show it. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for religious propaganda and fantasies.
Joe_hill  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe hill (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does Arabic have to do with religion?  AlphaEta T / C 14:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This was discussed a while ago at Talk:History of evolutionary thought#Arabic influence on Charles Darwin? and it's most unlikely that he learnt Arabic, or that the "works" had any direct influence on him – his grandfather, Lamarck and Grant are known sources of more detailed ideas which did directly influence him. The claims seem to be put forward by apologists for Arabic science, and appear to be in print but of very dubious reliability. .. dave souza, talk 14:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwin - a student of Arabic? 

message: "The polymath Ibn al-Haytham wrote a book in which he argued for evolutionism (although not natural selection), and numerous other Islamic scholars and scientists, such as Ibn Miskawayh, the Brethren of Purity, and the polymaths Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, Nasir al-Din Tusi, and Ibn Khaldun, discussed and developed these ideas. Translated into Latin, these works began to appear in the West after the Renaissance and appear to have had an impact on Western science."
Can anyone give any examples? Exactly in what way does it appear like muslim ideas had an impact on western science when it comes to the theory of evolution? If no one can give any examples of this - then I suggest we remove or rewrite that part.
--Joe hill (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appears to have had an impact - in what way? 

message: Having Judaism, Socialism, etc. in the "other isms" bit is totally silly, they are directly comparing it to creationism and other isms, no irrelevant examples need to be given. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, when reverting, I accidentally made it a minor edit. Oops. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it a bit silly?  The other -isms are there to give the reader a further understanding of how the term is being used to imply a belief, dogma or a religion, as opposed to it being a scientific theory.  In fact, the sentence following the part you keep deleting mentions exactly what I just wrote.  So, anything else?  Baegis (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be unrelated to the page, there should not be a link to Socialism, Nationalism, Judaism, etc. on a page about Evolutionism. I would put "to imply that it is equal to Creationism and other isms" then they can be linked to the ism page, and then they can understand what an ism is. There should not be irrelevant examples. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the article ism is irrelevant.  I think you mean -ism, except that is about the history of the suffix -ism, apparently.  Irrelevant.  In short, there is no suitable article to link to.  It's better to give a list of ad hoc examples, I think.  Silly rabbit (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Went back and reviewed recent edits more closely. I agree with Baegis' edit here. Reverting myself. Goo2you (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the examples are totally random and irrelevant. I would put:
"This label is used by creationists to suggest that evolution is an ideology like Creationism and other "-isms"." Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevancy

message: I honestly tried to provide what I thought was an objective rewrite of this article since the way the term may be used
by some creationists is a matter of someone's opinion and the term evolutionist can also be used by scientists or laypersons
to describe themselves at times. Wether the term was orginally coined by people that were creationists really seems to be a matter of opinion since noone knows for sure.  I provided real, valid sources rather than a bunch of garbage from talk forums like
talk.origins.   This article seems to imply that there is a creationist conspiracy afoot to label people as "evolutionists"
which is not really any more valid than me rewriting the article to redirect to a page about the vast left-wing evolution
conspiracy.
  
I'm hopeful that some sort of compromise could be reached so that this article deals with the subject at hand.  The theory of
evolution need not be explained to people on this page since that is what the evolution page is for. The information I provided
in the edit that was reverted by an administrator as you can see in the [History] was more relevant to the subject and was verifiable, whereas the sources cited from talk forums and even free web hosting services like geocities cheapen this encylopedia and make it a forum for petty bickering.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So among other things, I take it you propose remove the fragment "the theory of evolution itself is referred to as 'evolutionism' by creationists who portray it as a kind of secular religion", which was sourced to an article published in the magazine Science, a fairly prestigious and reliable source, rather than talkorigins.  Is Science not a "real valid source" for you?  If not, how does your above post address this aspect of the change?  The other parts of your proposed change should also be laid out.  For example, on what basis do you assert that evolution "attempts to explain" rather than "explains"?  Does it fail to do so in some way that can be attributed to a significant number of reliable sources?  Also, explain exactly why it is that an editorial published in Wired Magazine by someone called Michael Schrage is a more reliable source for the Creation-evolution controversy than talkorigins.org, a moderated forum with a substantial reputation for reliability on the controversy?  As far as I can tell, that is the only source you have added (besides misrepresenting the Science source), and it is really not as authoritative as you seem to believe.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Silly Rabbit, yes, that fragment should be removed.  The Science Article does not state anywhere that the term is used to portray "it" as some kind of secular religion.  More to the point, the statement is clearly a biased POV statement that is inappropriate in a wiki article.  I don't like Tzw100's changes, but the article needs work. --Thesoxlost (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You feel that the Science article does not support the proposed wording.  That's fair enough, and I am open for discussion.  However, you will note that the above post did not address this.  In fact, the above post addressed almost no aspects of the proposed edit.  The only thing that it addressed was the reliability of the talk.origins website.  I note from the edit history that you seem to agree with Tzw about this.  However, in addition to winning accolades from the scientific community, this site has been nearly unanimously agreed to be reliable for use in articles on the creation-evolution controversy in this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10#TalkOrigins Archive.  So please stop removing the link as a reference in this article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevancy and opinions 

message: Please stop removing the talk.origins archive.  This is considered a reliable source in articles on the creation-evolution controversy, per this discussion. So far these sources were removed three times, and reverted all three times by different editors.  Someone was bold, but then reverted.  The onus is now on that editor to discuss in the hopes that a new consensus will emerge, not to continue to edit war.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reasonable post, Silly rabbit.  I hadn't seen that discussion board.  I find it hard to believe that TalkOrigins is a WP:RS, but I'll look over the discussion and won't make any changes to the TalkOrigins reference without discussion.  I believe the Science article deletion still stands, however.  The reference simply does not support the statement being referenced.  --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take your creationist POV to another wiki.  TalkOrigins is absolutely RS, because it uses citations to confirm what it writes.  It functions as a well written review article.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I disagree with the last sentence.  At any rate, I have provided a direct quotation of the first sentence of the science article, so that readers can more easily verify exactly what the source says: that creationists portray the theory of evolution as a secular religion.  This, at least, is fully supported by the quotation.  I have, in addition, provided a link to the toarchive article, which also supports the statement.  But discussion of the Science article should be undertaken above, in the thread entitled "Science Article".  Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Another editor changed the site to read: "Some creationists... use these terms in an effort to make it appear the scientific theory is a form of secular religion."  But as Silly Rabbit's quote makes clear, the article states that a "major complaint of the Creationists... is that evolution--and Darwinism in particular--is more than just a scientific theory. They object that too often evolution operates as a kind of secular religion." It may be the case that creationists use the term evolutionism as a form of religion, but all the article says is that they complain that it too often operates as a religion.  If you want to make this strong of a claim, you'll need to find another reference.  This Science article simply doesn't support that strong of a statement. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually don't care what creationists say.  I care about NPOV.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talkorigins archive removal