Talk:Level of support for evolution/Archive 3

message: Imbrella has still failed to raise any specific issues with this article, so I have moved this thread to her talkpage (if you want to debate her further, then do so there). An article's talkpage is a forum for the discussion of improvements to the article, not a soapbox for vague complaints and rants. HrafnTalkStalk 12:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I venture that we shun Imbrella - unless he/she brings up a valid point, just ignore it.  I've wasted enough time here.  Imbrella - if you bring up a point we consider worth addressing, we will address it.  Otherwise, consider a complete lack of response to your comment a consensus that your suggestion has no merit.  We all monitor these pages, so we're all reading your comments, and we have all read what you've written to date.  And to date, consensus is a complete lack of merit to your contributions.  Go elsewhere.  Edit.  Come back and read.  If you still feel the need to post, do so in an appropriate manner.  WLU 14:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  are there any pro-science editors here? 

message: In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry.[91] 
  +  
  + And this resource is erroneous. Imbrella 14:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the complaints. Frankly, they are baseless.--Filll 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd reply, but I'm still shunning.  I've added some citation templates, and made a wording change in that section.  WLU 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dead links is a problem I also have when I save journal articles to my Favorites when Im dong literature searches. It is good to report dead links but it is not a major issue-more a technical problem with Wikipedia. I haven't read all of Imbrella's comment but much seems a rant that no other editor understands science is my first impression. I can't find specific complaints about content only complaints about choices of citations. Actually, we could use peer-reviewed literature and books to support a posit rather than use Talkorigins (which was my initial response too), but for an encyclopedia Talkorigins has the advantage of being accessible and a resource for the novice, and it contains similar citations and references from books and journals. My knee jerk response was not to use Talkorgins as a reference but for an encyclopedia it really offers a wealth of info and addresses common questions and misconceptions, so I see the advantages (I would agree some material is dated). In regard to Imbrella he appears to be trolling and perhaps WLU is correct to ignore. Regards, GetAgrippa 01:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this cite #91 goes no where 

message: here is a summary of many polls over the years.
This section here starts with the Gallup poll in 1991 that allowed for the analysis of university graduate responses, but the newer one (2005) doesn't quote any info about graduates. Would be nice if there was a comparison. Where to find the original Gallup data?
Northfox 10:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This poll is garbage -- 19% of respondents think that it is definitely or probably true that "human beings developed over millions of years" and that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years", both at the same time. Two explicitly contradictory positions can't both be "probably true", let alone "definitely true". HrafnTalkStalk 11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is not our job as editors to judge if a poll is garbage or not. Believe me - I got burned once trying that. As editors, we just have to report what is reported. And a newer report on graduate numbers would compliment the reported older numbers. Northfox 13:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A self-contradictory poll is by definition unreliable, and so impermissible. HrafnTalkStalk 14:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is the poll self-contradictory, or are the people answering the poll self-contradictory? If the latter, the poll is still significant and can stay. I think you'll have a hard time prove the former. Northfox 14:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll reports self-contradictory results. It is thus unreliable. It should not be included in the article. Stop being obtuse. HrafnTalkStalk 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As such, it is a good example of how unreliable these polls are. In any case, these poll figures are not much different than what was obtained previously. To the best of my knowledge, the level of support by the public for creationism and evolution has been essentially stable for the last 100 years or so. At about the same level as these polls your link shows, which is about what is stated in the article. --Filll 11:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's so much on the page, I don't know what point is being supported - it could be useful as a source for the amount of public support for evolution, but it'd be difficult to pull out a single poll.  I'd have to see a specific sentence mixed with a specific poll result.  And I'd rather it were linked to the actual poll than a summary site.  WLU 14:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent public belief section 

message: I went through the lead and changed everything to citation templates, and did a couple other MOS formatting things.  I believe I caught all the changes between the original version I used and the current one, but feel free to check through.  WLU 21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could people please check what these citation templates produce, rather than simply filling them in blindly. The templates for the Amicus Brief citation yielded a long-winded and not particularly informative citation. I have attempted to fix it, by making sure that mention of the brief came before the court case, and clearing out a long list of names of lawyers who were purely incidental to the reasons for inclusion. HrafnTalkStalk 13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I went through and constructed that particular template at an ENORMOUS expenditure time and thought on Evolution as theory and fact, but only because I couldn't figure a cleaner way of doing so.  Your simplifications are a great improvement, I'll paste it over there.  WLU 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citaton templates 

message: Most of this section is about belief and poll results in general and has very little direct connection to the article. I removed one particular OR paragraph. The rest should be revised, too. Northfox 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It gives context to popular disbelief in Evolution, by providing other instances of popular beliefs unsupported by scientific evidence. HrafnTalkStalk 07:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Northfox here, the paragraph removed here did seem to be full of OR.  The points may be valid, but without a citation this is very much OR to me.  That being said, I would think that a citation for these criticisms would not be difficult to find if you knew where to look.  Were a citation found, the section could easily stand either as is or with modification to conform to the citation.  I think the Public support section itself is somewhat problematic and walks a fine line of reporting and OR.  And the Political Identification table is just floating, without any real context.  Also, the spirit of this edit is a good one, but I think it requires adaptaion.  WLU 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-read, re-titled and re-wrote the entire section - I don't see what the beliefs about the paranormal and whatnot were doing in the section.  In my mind, based on the evolution/creationism-specific citations that were there, the section was about the public's understanding of the epistemological, methodological and paradigmatic (or whatever polysyllabic words you want to insert) understanding of both camps positions or backgrounds.  There's still a large swath of text there that's commented out - I just don't see why it's there, it looked like it was there to portray the general public as scientifically illiterate or irrational, when I think it was a bit of a stretch to assume that from the evidence.  It's shorter, but it seems cleaner to me, with little to no OR.  Without specific links, I don't think the citations can be included in that section or even the page, since there's no actual mention of creationism or evolution in them.  WLU 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More re-writing of the scientists section in question, and I removed the commented-out text completely.  Please have a look, feel free to comment.  WLU 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Examining the level of public support 

message: Someone should check the accuracy of the tables in this article. I'm not saying that the data is false; I'm saying the tables might be accidentally mislabeled or simply confusing. --Armaetin (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charts 

message: Evolution and Its Discontents: A Role for Scientists in Science Education -- conducted by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, covers acceptance of evolution, and a number of related issues. HrafnTalkStalk 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New survey 

message: It's a blog comment, so unusable as a source. But i's links/interpretations may prove useful. HrafnTalkStalk 07:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eugenie Scott has her own page, and I think it's arguable that WP:SPS supports a judicious use of the information.  She's a notable critic, a huge player in the culture wars.  WLU (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is usable since she is notable. However, we already have most, if not all, of that information with better sources.--Filll (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it's a comment appended to somebody else's blog post, which I seem to remember is considered to be per se unreliable (probably as there's often no way of determining if the comment is from who it claims to be). HrafnTalkStalk 02:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from Eugenie C. Scott that might prove relevant 

message: The ICR quote is accurate and sourced to ICR itself: . Wikipedia is not used as a source for Wikipedia; ICR is a source for its views, not WP. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICR quote 

message: You cannot remove material you do not like willy-nilly as here. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia according to NPOV, and will not be allowed to remain like this. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of balancing NPOV material

message: I'm not sure I agree with the assessment given in this diff.  The article does not focus on applications, but this single sentence is followed by a hefty list of references, one of which is available online.  Here is a quote from one of the sources provided http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html:
:Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example: 
:* Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions. 
:* Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001). 
:* Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002). 
:* Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping. 
:* Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003). 
:* Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).
I am therefore reverting this edit.  I also find it highly suspicious that this edit, along with the other two recent removals of information, was incorrectly labelled as a minor edit. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Mjharrison felt that the article was showing too few areas where evolution underlies research, which seems a fair point. I've modified the paragraph to combine the previous focus on practical applications with the new info added by Mjharrison, who's a new user so I've left a welcome. Haven't mentioned the issue about minor edits as yet. .. dave souza, talk 16:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Mjharrison may also have a good point with this deletion – the context of the quote belittling the usefulness of evolution isn't clear, and it gives the impression of quote mining while possibly being given undue weight. The link to Coyne's review doesn't seem to be working just now. Suggest reconsidering this bit. .. dave souza, talk 16:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe we need some words to put the quote in context, but we need material to demonstrate that there is another side to the story. Unfortunately we cannot present just pro-evolution material without violating NPOV. If you look at the history of this article, the entire article was almost deleted because its first versions were too pro-evolution.--Filll (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I see where Mjharrison is coming from with the Coyne quote.  I have no strong feeling there one way or the other, but it was being used in a somewhat misleading way. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To demonstrate the other side, why not consult http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html – the second cite it gives, from Carl Wieland, is available at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/evolution.asp and has statements such as "the common fallacy that belief in evolution has something to do with real, practical science that works." Coyne is no creationist, but as it happens, another review of his in Nature has been quote-mined for peppered moth evolution#Criticism and controversy. .. dave souza, talk 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: As I look at how this article has changed over the last few weeks and months, it is clear that awful English, and all kinds of confusion and nonsense have been introduced in it. Therefore I am going to revert it back. Thanks for all the "help" everything. Nothing like shoving nonsense in articles.--Filll (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert coming

message: This edit which does not agree with the cited reference just is not helpful, and neither is the lecturing. But thanks for trying. --Filll (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it not agree with the cited reference when it is a direct quote?  violet/riga (t) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone will stop fighting, I will fix it.--Filll (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks to edit warring by anti-science elements, the text has been changed from the source material.--Filll (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The text within the ref tag is presented as a direct quote.  If it has been edited from what it actually says then it needs fixing immediately as that is unacceptable.  The wording in the body text can then be fixed as well.  violet/riga (t) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was changed. And I refuse to engage in this ridiculous fighting and edit warring, frankly. If there is wrong information in the article, it is not because I put it there but because others in their frenzy to fight introduced it. For me to change it and correct it before people settle down is frankly dangerous in the current climate. Many would prefer inaccurate information I suspect. So I will wait.--Filll (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The conversion to a statistic, worded as it was, was misleading and did not add anything that improved understanding.  violet/riga (t) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In addition we have data from about 4 or 5 creationist "petitions" or signed statements which presume to describe the substantial dispute for the reigning orthodoxy of "darwinism", or dispute of evolution, by immense groups of scientists. Therefore, we need to compare these data with each other, and other kinds of data. Percentages are a reasonable basis on which to do so, rather than asking casual readers to do a lot of dividing and subtracting. Sorry for any offense this causes.--Filll (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source text says that the scientists "give credence..." - this is a little vague and to interpret that as was written (by both sides) is inappropriate.  There is no need to present the statistics as a percentage, even when comparing to similar data.  Indeed, having variety in the presentation of such numbers actually adds weight to them and reduces repetition.  violet/riga (t) 23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And thus ends my discussion with you.  violet/riga (t) 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I was thinking Octal, but ... Anyway, conversion to decimals is not OR, which I think was the original point of this thread.  Additionally. presenting both the raw numbers and the percentages is helful; in fact, it's the academic thing to do. •Jim62sch• 11:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, so why not do both? (I at least don't see what the big deal is either way). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Let  me ask a related question: does anyone here think there is any reason not to have both? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The wording of the quote clearly states that 700 scientists "give credence to creation-science", yet does not make anything clear about the views of the other 479,300.  Some of them could believe in a world created in 6 days and not evolution.  Claiming that 99.x% of them "supported evolution over creation science" is not necessarily true because the source does not say that - it is an assumption.  While it is a fairly safe assumption that the vast majority of them support evolution we cannot say so without violating our WP:OR policy.  violet/riga (t) 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point violet.  This is just another case of WP keeping the real reason down.  Baegis (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarcasm doesn't aid discussion.  violet/riga (t) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Given that a) the article quoted 700 X out of Y, and b) we are comparing those numbers to those of other studies, then I would say that percentages must be presented, and ideally also the sample sizes (700/480000). If the article said 700 "give credence to..." then it is totally reasonable to infer that the other 479300 do not give credence to creation science. Granted this is not precisely the same thing as explicitly asking for acceptance of mainstream evolution, but the overall implication is pretty damn close. For what it's worth, in 15 years of working & socialising internationally in research science I have never directly or by hearsay heard of any scientist disclaiming evolution in any way. Given the 150 years of research on evolution and hundreds of thousands of scientists that have worked on it, including literally millions of peer-reviewed, peer-reproduced studies, anyone who even attempted to disclaim evolution without having some seriously mind-blowing and validateable data would be treated with a great deal of contempt. Mjharrison (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Bump.  Can we restore to the original please and move along?  Simple math is not OR.  Baegis (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am still waiting for you to provide a diff to show how the quote was changed.  Until such evidence is provided it is a pure breach of policy to include that statistic and it should be included as data (as per the edit I made) or omitted.  Further, I also made the point that presenting data in different ways actually adds to the strength of an argument and reduces repetition, something that has not been addressed.  violet/riga (t) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon me for being imprudent, but I think under the current circumstances that inaccuracy and mistakes in the  material and obscure misleading text is preferable. Sorry, but to go further in the current situation is just too dangerous. If you want to find the reprint yourself and rewrite the article, that might be an option. You can also try to find other references, such as the reprint of the 1997 Gallup report, which we would like to have and I am working on obtaining. However, finding other sources would be useful if you want to help. Otherwise, lets just stay with the errors for time being. --Filll (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim that the quote has been changed and specifically note it as an error.  It is therefore not acceptable to include it in the article.  We can't present something as a quote when the source is not matching it.  I have therefore removed it pending a diff showing the original (correct) wording.  violet/riga (t) 20:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fly by admin editing

message: OK - Stop. There is no policy stating that simple arithmetic calculations, including percentages, are forbidden. Such calculations done for clarity, consistency and/or comparison purposes are perfectly valid, such do not fall under WP:OR. Of course the calculated figures are no better than the numbers they are based on and care must be taken to avoid any such implication. A simple example is the calculation and addition of metric units when measurements are given in a non-metric system (here care must be taken to avoid changing the precision of the measure). So, do the calculations and add the percentages and violetriga won't revert without a specific and clear policy. Meanwhile, Fill - your comments are getting quite pointy, please tone it down a bit. On with improving the article and quit the quibbling. Vsmith (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not quite so simple a calculation.  If we asked 100 people what their favourite type of music was and 20 said "Rap" we couldn't then say that 80% don't like rap.  It is a total misrepresentation of the original statistic - we cannot make such assertions.  I wonder what this obsession with policy is, and would like to remind people about wikilawyering - we don't need a rule set in stone for everything and common sense always applies.  There is no valid reason why the statistics need to be manipulated in such a way when the raw numbers present it without controversy, avoids the problems of rewording the source, and makes the paragraph flow better.  violet/riga (t) 10:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that this type of article often attracts people that are obsessive about their POV and must force it.  Such people turn everything into an argument and are totally unable to discuss things in a civilised manner.  Compromises and sensible discussions always trump pointless arguments and stubbornness.  It makes it impossible difficult to develop a consensus as people are so sure that their way is right that they are blind to other options, even those that are actually a compromise position.  Thankfully not everyone here is like that.  violet/riga (t) 15:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining why you are on this page, although I think we already knew that.--Filll (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, violet.  Could you please clarify what the other option is if they don't give credence to creation science, as per Fill below?  Baegis (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You never know what crackpot theories these scientists have.  The simple fact is that saying that they support evolution over creation science is not a true representation of what the original says.  If the original terminology was used with the percentage then it would be much better, but why bother to put our own interpretation of the statistics in when directly quoting lends much more weight to the argument.  It also removes the problem that we previously had: the edit war between representing it as 99.85% or 0.15%.  violet/riga (t) 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop 

message: Remember the title of the aricle - "Level of support of evolution".  No, not what one particular segment of society contends.  By placing paragraph after paragraph of redundant material at the top, the essential core of the issue is buried.  The vast majority of the American public does not accept "evolution" as the self-described scientific community defines it.  This fact belongs at the beginning of the article.  Any detailing of views of slices of the public should be subordinate.  Z1perlster (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: huh? What is your problem? This is not a place for lectures. The simple truth is, most scientists accept evolution. A large chunk of the public supports it, either with a belief in God or without. However, more of the public believes in creationism than the science community. More physical scientists believe in creationism than biologists. More republicans believe in creationism than democrats. And more of the ignorant and uneducated believe in creationism than the educated. And more Americans believe in creationism than any other Western industrialized country. And that is it in a nutshell. And it says it in this article, or did before it was mangled. And so what is your problem?--Filll (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, read the title - no where does the word "scientist" appear.  In essence, the title of this article now constitutes false advertising.  A reader curious about how the "level of support" for evolution won't find it here.  Instead, they will find yet another rehash of the appeal to authority fallacy so popular in evolution pages. Z1perlster (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (e/c) The opinions of experts and scientists should receive a far greater treatment than that of random people polled by news organizations.  Moreover, I also don't think that polls focusing exclusively on Americans should be emphasized.  As a slice of public opinion, the US is actually at bottom in terms of support (second only to Turkey).  A majority of the European public, for instance, support evolution.  I wonder if you would still take the same tone if the article were instead to emphasize the high level of support for evolution in European countries rather than (as you are advocating) the low level in the United States.  Silly rabbit (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your silly personal attacks only highlight the weakness of your argument.  If you don't like the truth, go to Fictionapedia.   No where have I even stated my "bias", let alone done anything to place it in the article.  Unlike you, I am concerned only with the relevant facts as to the subject of the article.  Whether any particular view is "nonsense" is completely irrelevant.  The relative sizes of the general population that support differing views simply must be in an article with the title "Level of support for evolution". Z1perlster (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are different ways to state the support for evolution - one is scientific evidence.  It is the only evidence that matters, since it is based on a study of the empirical data to syntehsize a theory to explain it.  This is in the Evidence of common descent article I would guess.  Irrespective, the scientific support for evolution is very important, as is the support of scientists (specifically biologists and paleontologists) since they are familiar with the evidence (and the level of support among scientists is of interest since they're seen as being the relevant group of experts, though really it's only a subsection of scientists who are the true experts, and since this support has been mis-portrayed by creationists gunning for political public support).  Popular support, what people believe about evolution, is another way to discuss it.  This is addressed in the first sentence of the final paragraph in the lead, "Many claims in the creation-evolution controversy rest on whether or not evolution is genuinely disputed by those in scientific circles, the public's acceptance of the theory of evolution and religious and educational organizations and both sides of the dispute exhibit interest in evaluating the level of popular and scientific support for evolution."  I think the lead adequately sets up the page by demonstrating who the important parties are, how their beliefs and arguments are (mis)portrayed, and why it is important.  A lot to pack into a lead, and it does so very adequately in my mind.  WLU (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-evolution forces attempt to bury the truth in this article.