Talk:Objections to evolution/Archive 1

message: I would suggest calling it Objections to Evolution, which is the name of a draft that expands on some of these points that Orangemarlin and I are working on. We would then just fold our rough draft into this one for a more complete and broader article.--Filll 21:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A misunderstanding is not an objection. Either it's one or the other; what are you guys actually writing about? -Silence 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, there is a draft of a longer article on falsifiability which is sort of an expansion of section 1.2, waiting for some more input from other editors who are busy at the moment. The longer falsifiability we have had quite a few comments on and is in a bit of a ragged state, but can be seen at Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft, and the stub that might turn into a longer version of 1.2 is in  Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft. Obviously, we are not quite sure how to organize all this material. The Evolution as theory and fact was the first to sail out into WP. The Support for evolution was the second, and we probably didnt get enough community input first. I will not make that mistake again. So, that gives you more of an idea.--Filll 23:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another draft which I have sitting around is a stub that lists the main court cases at Talk:Evolution/legalcases. Many of these have their own articles and are also included at Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy so i am not sure if I should just fold them into Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy, or if a separate article listing these and other cases would be worthwhile. I am glad to hear any comments or input since the legal stuff is important, but not really my main bag. I will note that my understanding is that the cases have left huge loopholes which are not widely understood. That is, it is not against the law to teach creationism in the science classrooms in public schools in the USA, it is illegal to require it to be taught however. I need to explore this to find more details, since this might be incorrect.--Filll 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer to silence: a summary of projects with orangemarlin

message: I'm really confused.  We had a major war over the Support for evolution, and I'm not sure much different this fork is to that one.  Could we merge the articles? Orangemarlin 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can merge the articles. This article is forked because evolution was getting too large and this information was iteratively removed from the topic of evolution itself. If there is stuff in support for evolution you think belongs here, bring it over. --ScienceApologist 16:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As the evolution article has grown unwieldy, this is part of the normal process of splitting off sections as main articles, leaving a small summary style section. There's no need for it to be pov, as people often genuinely misunderstand wording or issues about evolution. The fact that many creationists base their claims on what scientists consider to be misunderstandings needs a brief mention, but it's not an absolute: for example, AiG may be quite a useful source for debunking some misunderstandings which they tell other creationists not to use. Wording does have to be carefully considered to achieve NPOV, but that should certainly be possible. .. dave souza, talk 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This AiG link might prove useful: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use – note for example that they argue against using "evolution is just a theory"...... dave souza, talk 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge I consider the title of this article inherently POV.  A merger to Objections to evolution, as suggested on the article page, would be advisable. YechielMan 15:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this fork in existence? 

message: A social/religious controversy may be based on misunderstandings, but it is not itself a misunderstanding, anymore than a war started by a misunderstanding would properly be included in a list of misunderstandings. I am going to re-add the section to the main evolution article, and work on trimming it down a bit so it doesn't bloat that page much. It's too noteworthy of a topic not to have a section on there anyway. -Silence 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok if you think so. What about an expanded version taking this material, adding to it similar material from the controversy article plus from the rough draft orangemarlin and I are working on ? So the controversy article would then be more on the details, history etc of the controversy, but not the points of controversy, misunderstanding, objection etc which could bein a long dedicated sister article. The reason for this is that there are many more misunderstandings/objections than this, and the controversy article is sort of bipolar, and already too long as well.--Filll 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you talking about the Creation-evolution controversy article? -Silence 22:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I get the impression, because of the similarity of this material, and the corresponding material in the Creation-evolution controversy article, that the Creation-evolution controversy article at one time was a fork off evolution. However, it has also grown fairly long, and has a lot of sort of dense text in it and is not that clear. --Filll 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. That resolves problems on both pages. I'd suggest that this should still have a brief summary style section on the relationship of misunderstandings to the controversy, but it should be pointing to that as a main article and should not go into other aspects of controversy. .. dave souza, talk 00:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "Social and religious controversy" 

message: In the image at the top, "flaggelates" should be spelled "flagellates". I didn't see a way to contact the image's contributor (file history doesn't work). Art LaPella 07:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be blind. I dont see the image you are describing at all.-Filll 07:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't see :Image:Tree of life.svg? -Silence 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I do. I just never bothered to blow it up.--Filll 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. darkliight[πalk] 07:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image misspelling

message: I was looking for something on the falsifiability of evolutionary theory to link
to another article, and couldn't find it. Should a section on the subject be added to this article? 1Z 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are working on a rough draft now on falsifiability. You are welcome to use any of our text that you want but I warn you that it is not finished yet. Let me get you the link to the draft.--Filll 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsifiability 

message: I think I am witnessing a WP:OWN rant. Take a look at some extracted material at Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution/TheoryvFact. 
===What is in the subpage===
*Section 1 is a discussion that spurred us to create new Fact vs. Theory material. 
*Section 2 is the Fact vs. Theory section in the evolution article before Orangemarlin and I applied our new changes
*Section 3 is the Fact vs. Theory section in the evolution  article before Filll's involvement
*Section 4 is the Fact vs. Theory section in the Creation-evolution controversy article before Orangemariln and I applied our new changes.  
===History of my involvement with Theory vs. Fact===
OrangeMarlin first raised the issue of the Fact vs. Theory section inaccessibility on Dec 11, 2006. I had asked previously about it on several occasions for about 1 month. In both cases, we recieved no reply or interest. So on Dec 13, 2006, we decided to WP:Be Bold and make a draft of a new version at Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory, which we did. We invited the community to edit it. We did get some community edits, as you can see. Another 4 days later, when there were no strong objections, one or two other editors advised me to  WP: Be Bold and apply the changes, which I did. I included an abbreviated form of the material at the Creation-evolution controversy page, and the evolution page, and since there was too much to include in the article, we produced the separate Evolution as theory and fact article with links. The section in evolution was the subject of heavy edit-warring by editors who had previously written them I assume. I basically gave up and let them turn it into a mess because it was too tedious to fight with them and they were too anxious to keep it as it was. However, the discussions spurred me to start working on a rewrite of Evolution as a theory and fact because several things about the issue were revealed in the discussions:
*One editor, even though he supported evolution, was not aware that there was a THEORY and a PROCESS both called evolution, and fought this notion extremely hard and was very belligerent about it. This obviously needs to be explained more carefully with cites
*The editors refused to accept dictionary definitions, so these probably need to be cited carefully
*Gould was treated as though he had written some sort of sacred text, even though I think it was a hastily written column for Discover magazine. 
*The editors wanted to read Gould selectively, picking and choosing which passages to use and which to discard since these Gould passages did not fit their model of reality
*The editors did not want to accept evolution as a fact because it was observed and formed data. The editors wanted to describe evolution as a theory that was so well established we might as well call it a fact. Investigation of this issue in dictionaries and the National Academy of Science official publications and position papers on this issue show that both usages are acceptable, although one is clearly preferred and predominant. This has to be explained, since Gould and other authors do use both of these, but only if you know the details can you parse what they are writing. Otherwise, it just sounds like "double talk" or "new speak". This argument went on for days; you can see a bit at Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy#Evolution_not_a_piece_of_data_from_an_experiment
===Theory vs. Fact before my involvement===
Examining Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution/TheoryvFact one can get a good look at the kind of material the previous editors seem so bent on preserving at all costs. From the point of view of a scientist, they are wrong, or very misleading at best. Certainly add to the confusion rather than dispell it. There is way too much "philosophy of science" jargon and nonsense that makes it sound like a frantic effort to sound pedantic and learned, but adds very little to the sections. It is more a form of mental masturbation and show-boating, to try to show how smart the editor is. One section was even marked by someone as "confusing or unclear for some readers". I did not do this; it was marked that way when I first saw it. There is not enough information to be able to parse Gould's famous quote clearly, or read the rest of his article and make sense of it. 
Discussion on various talk pages: 
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_007#Fact_Vs_Theory shows complete confusion on the part of the editors
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_007#Evolution_as_a_fact is more of the same
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_008#Evolution_vs_Theory_of_Evolution demonstrates that an average intelligent motivated reader cannot understand what the editors have written (which is a mess by the way, so it is not surprising)
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_009#Newton.27s_Theory, Talk:Evolution/Archive_009#Fact_versus_theory is more discussion of the concept
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_013#POVTalk:Evolution/Archive_013#Theory examples of  creationists not understanding the concept
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_21#Distinctions_between_theory_and_fact Another editor's complains about Gould, and my first discussion of this issue and complaints about how we explain it on WP on November 20, 2006
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_21#Deleting_Comments is me trying to explain the issue to a creationist; clearly the section in evolution is inadequate
From what I have seen, this issue needs to be explained well with good sources. It is a source of constant confusion for creationists, although some creationist websites include it on their lists of arguments not to use. It is also very poorly understood even by evolution apologists. The philosophy of science material is unhelpful, generally.  
Orangemarlin came to WP just trying to find out something on this to take to a schoolboard meeting, and found WP useless. Casual readers like Orangemarlin trying to get information are completely frustrated by the kind of material WP has on this issue, which is VERY bad. If there is nothing of value for readers, what is this stuff anyway? 
If truth be told, is not really that deep if explained properly. 
Also, "Fact v. Theory" confusion has been at the root of many proposed laws in different states (over 20 and as many as 40) and in some cases those laws were actually enacted. Also it has been part of numerous court battles. It is important and there needs to be a place where someone can find references and discussion of this issue. It does not seem to die; it has not died although it has been explained thousands upon thousands of times over the last few decades. It still might not die even if WP does a good job of it, but at least we can try to be a reliable encyclopedic reference on this issue. Anything that has spurred the creation of dozens of laws and lawsuits is worth a WP article. --Filll 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! I was unaware court battles focused so much on that specific issue. Good enough for me; meaning I don't mind the Fact vs. Theory subpage anymore. - RoyBoy 800 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ownership

message: Examining Talk:Misunderstandings about evolution/TheoryvFact one can get a good look at the kind of material the previous editors seem so bent on preserving at all costs. From the point of view of a scientist, they are wrong, or very misleading at best. Certainly add to the confusion rather than dispell it. There is way too much "philosophy of science" jargon and nonsense that makes it sound like a frantic effort to sound pedantic and learned, but adds very little to the sections. It is more a form of mental masturbation and show-boating, to try to show how smart the editor is. One section was even marked by someone as "confusing or unclear for some readers". I did not do this; it was marked that way when I first saw it. There is not enough information to be able to parse Gould's famous quote clearly, or read the rest of his article and make sense of it. 
Discussion on various talk pages: 
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_007#Fact_Vs_Theory shows complete confusion on the part of the editors
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_007#Evolution_as_a_fact is more of the same
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_008#Evolution_vs_Theory_of_Evolution demonstrates that an average intelligent motivated reader cannot understand what the editors have written (which is a mess by the way, so it is not surprising)
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_009#Newton.27s_Theory, Talk:Evolution/Archive_009#Fact_versus_theory is more discussion of the concept
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_013#POVTalk:Evolution/Archive_013#Theory examples of  creationists not understanding the concept
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_21#Distinctions_between_theory_and_fact Another editor's complains about Gould, and my first discussion of this issue and complaints about how we explain it on WP on November 20, 2006
*Talk:Evolution/Archive_21#Deleting_Comments is me trying to explain the issue to a creationist; clearly the section in evolution is inadequate
From what I have seen, this issue needs to be explained well with good sources. It is a source of constant confusion for creationists, although some creationist websites include it on their lists of arguments not to use. It is also very poorly understood even by evolution apologists. The philosophy of science material is unhelpful, generally.  
Orangemarlin came to WP just trying to find out something on this to take to a schoolboard meeting, and found WP useless. Casual readers like Orangemarlin trying to get information are completely frustrated by the kind of material WP has on this issue, which is VERY bad. If there is nothing of value for readers, what is this stuff anyway? 
If truth be told, is not really that deep if explained properly. 
Also, "Fact v. Theory" confusion has been at the root of many proposed laws in different states (over 20 and as many as 40) and in some cases those laws were actually enacted. Also it has been part of numerous court battles. It is important and there needs to be a place where someone can find references and discussion of this issue. It does not seem to die; it has not died although it has been explained thousands upon thousands of times over the last few decades. It still might not die even if WP does a good job of it, but at least we can try to be a reliable encyclopedic reference on this issue. Anything that has spurred the creation of dozens of laws and lawsuits is worth a WP article. --Filll 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! I was unaware court battles focused so much on that specific issue. Good enough for me; meaning I don't mind the Fact vs. Theory subpage anymore. - RoyBoy 800 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory vs. Fact before my involvement

message: I think that we can offer something that talkorigins cannot. 
*First, we have wiki-technology, so we can write much nicer articles with much nicer links. 
*Second, we can be updated more rapidly 
*Third, we are not trying to advocate for a given position like talkorigins or National Center for Science Education or Answers in Genesis is. We are compelled to present both sides, with their strengths and weaknesses. This creates a very different and in some ways more "honest" appraisal of the current situation than the more biased venues can or do. 
*fourth, we are open to a much wider range of contributors, so we can in principle have a much wider range of material
*Fifth, we can function more like a review site or meta site than the others. I cannot go to Answers in Genesis to find this kind of information about competing organizations that support creationism:
**Discovery Institute A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a list of scientists who dispute evolution on the Discovery Institute's website
**Institute for Creation ResearchList of Creation Scientists , a list of biological and physical scientists that support creationism on the Institute for Creation Research website.
**Answers in GenesisCreation scientists and other biographies of interest, a list of scientists that support creationism on the Answers in Genesis website.
**Creation Ministries InternationalCreation scientists and other specialists of interest, a list of scientists who support creationism on Creation Ministries International's website. It should be noted that Creation Ministries International is the international arm of Answers in Genesis and not an independent organization.
:because basically, these organizations, all ostensibly on the same side, and nonprofit (some of them), are in actuality competing commercial enterprises that disagree drastically with each other on doctrinal issues and strategy. 
*Sixth, Wikipedia can take a far more academic approach to the subject, drawing on a much wider range of expertise than the pure creationist websites, or the science apologist sites. Wikipedia can offer the subject from multiple perspectives, critique and summarize the perspectives of the other organizations involved, etc.
*Seventh, I am not sure that any of the others have their information organized in a reasonable fashion for someone who just wants to learn about subject, from a neutral perspective, or even from the scientific or creationist perspectives. 
:Orangemarlin first came here to find information on the subject to combat trouble at his local school board. He was very disappointed with what WP offered on the subject. What WP had was basically worthless for him trying to learn about the issue, so he joined up to help contribute. The average person on the street does not even know to go to talkorigins. They know Wikipedia has articles on lots of stuff. And I personally use Wikipedia as sort of an intelligent search agent to point me to sites that I am interested in, rather than digging through pages of google output or dogpile output. Someone has already done that and organized it for me, on many many subjects, on Wikipedia already. It is far easier and faster to use Wikipedia than to reinvent the wheel. And that is what Wikipedia can do on this subject; Wikipedia can organize this incredible mass of information into something accessible (like an encyclopedia does, actually) for someone who just wants to know where to get started, what the issues are, what sites to visit, what is there, etc. --Filll 22:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with talkorigins

message: Now that the AfD's over, there's no obstacle to moving this article to a new title. As discussed, I recommend that we broaden this article's scope so that it can cover a much wider range of topics. The draft at User:Silence/Evolution gives an idea of current plans for the "Objection" article, and anyone is feel to contribute to that page and help expand or improve upon it.
As I see it, if we keep the current "Misunderstandings" article, we'll have to delete most of its contents as being outside of its scope: "Social and religious controversies" clearly doesn't belong, and "Entropy and life" and "Information" are not really misunderstandings about evolution, but are rather misunderstandings about thermodynamics and information theory which are used by creationists to dispute evolution. If we keep the article as-is, therefore, we'll end up only having two sections left, and both of those sections already have comprehensive articles on their respective topics anyway: Evolution as theory and fact for "Evolution is just a theory", and Devolution for "Devolution can occur". (And most of "Devolution" is an irrelevant digression in the context of this article, since it's an excessive and bloated list of unnecessary examples.)
On the other hand, if we broaden the current article's scope, we can not only keep all of the important information currently here, but we can also add lots more highly important, relevant, and verifiable misunderstandings about evolution, by reframing them as general anti-evolutionary creationist claims. Again, see User:Silence/Evolution for how much more comprehensive, concise, and informative the "Objections" article can be, even on the topics which the "Misunderstandings" article currently specializes in, like the "Controversy" section (covered in "History") and the "Devolution" section (covered in "Defining evolution"). It's really a win-win situation. And we can keep the basic misunderstandings intact in their heavily summarized, super-concise form on Evolution#Misunderstandings while providing the links to specific articles for anyone who's interested in the details, which makes it a win-win-win. I see no disadvantages to a move to Objections to evolution, and dozens of advantages. -Silence 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like several others, I made clear in my AfD reply my desire to see this page renamed and adjusted properly for the article name Objections to evolution. The article you have as a draft seems to be well done (nice image selection, by the way.) I think that this article should be renamed as such, and replaced with the draft. Remember, though, the draft could use a little more work... there seem to be several unfinished sections at the bottom. .V. (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the draft isn't finished yet, or I'd have probably made the article already. In addition to the unfinished "placeholder" sections, some of the finished ones could use a fair amount more work in providing good sources, clarifications, etc. And I'm considering the possibility of merging certain sections, since the ToC is quite long. But the draft should at least give a general idea of what's planned; we can hammer out the details over time. -Silence 19:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you and orangemarlin have a specific "Objections to Evolution" rough draft I could see? Or are you only referring to the subsections/articles (e.g., the "religion and evolution" page) you linked me to before? -Silence 20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Objections to evolution]]

message: Comments:
I read it through for the first time in a couple of weeks. I like it. I have a couple of comments:
*I would suggest a sort of Reader's digest version of the objections and major rebuttals someplace early on, so someone can get the broad sweep of it without it being Too Long To Read. Sort of a guide to objections or summary or something. Maybe in point form? I do not know.
:*In a sense, one could say that the ToC serves that purpose, since it provides a one-line summary of all the major objections covered in the article. If you believe that's insufficient, do you have a recommendation for how best to summarize them all early in the page? My concern is that if we start adding too many summaries we'll make the page longer, and it's already a very long article that is likely to expand in the future. -Silence 22:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I was thinking that, but I am thinking more along the lines of annotated index almost. It is pretty long already so I am not sure. I will give you an example of what I did previously. You might disagree however. Look at History of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. The reader gets a choice of what to read, in successively more detail. Now there are 4 levels there so that might be a bit much; 2 or 3 might suffice (lead, summary in point form, body). I will think about it some more.--Filll 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Usefulness, not beauty, is what matters for Wikipedia article content. Feel free to destroy their beauty if it makes them more useful. We should not forget the best interest of the readers in our pride over our own achievements. What do you mean by "a bit much" for the article? Do you mean that, in their attempt to provide a context for the rest of the article, they are too general to fit into this article? Do you mean that they are too long or verbose? Or do you mean that they are too flowery or unencyclopedically eloquent, rather than simply straightforward and factual? It's hard for me to parse your meaning here. -Silence 22:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are a bit long and detailed when they are covered elsewhere. However, I prefer your summaries to what is elsewhere. Lets see what Orangemarlin thinks. I also trust DGG's opinions. And Adam's. --Filll 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Feel free to make additions. We can always remove content later, or make new daughter articles to suit the expanded content, or summarize stuff that's already there, as the need arises. It is easier to make an article shorter than to make it longer, so you shouldn't be discouraged from adding to it, at least in the short-term; and it's easy to revert bad changes, so you shouldn't be discouraged from experimenting with new ideas for the article either. -Silence 22:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok let me think about it. I have been working on History of creationism and I keep turning up great new stuff.--Filll 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on new article

message: I would also like to see links to the outside anti-creationist sites and creationist sites where these objections are discussed at length. Do we have room for this? Is it advisable?--Filll 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend citing any noteworthy creationist and anti-creationist sites wherever they are relevant to various parts of the article, and providing the links in the citation. This avoids any potential link-farm problems, while simultaneously improving the article's referencing of the text (we have almost 100 cites now, but most of the article's statements are still not very well cited). -Silence 19:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is a look at some links that deal with the same subject as this article: Talk:Objections to evolution/Extlinks. Some of them are far more extensive of course than this short article, but they might be a good resource. Most of them are pro-evolution sites. I have a link or two to creationism sites. I would like to have an equal number of each.--Filll 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exterior links 

message: just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live. High King of the Noldor 23:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you have any sources to back that up, but you make a compelling argument. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chuck Norris doesn't need sourcesShniken 12:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no theory of evolution.. 

message: The following, from the introduction of the current article:
Might be changed in light of the following (from the Creation-evolution controversy article:
Numbers, Ronald L. (1998-11-15), Darwinism Comes to America, Harvard University Press,  
Hope this helps.  StudyAndBeWise 02:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: How about Societal acceptance of evolution or something along that line? (Public acceptance? Societal objections?) Adam Cuerden talk 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand. Did you post this comment here accidentally? We already have a Social effect of evolutionary theory article. This article is about objections to evolution. And I don't quite understand what a "social objection" would be. An objection that likes socializing? -Silence 02:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I got this and "Level of support for evolution" confused, as I didn't double check I was at the right article. Adam Cuerden talk 03:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title suggestion

message: The creationists are for the most part defending biblical literalism. This is soapboxing? Controversial? It needs references?--Filll 15:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that old-earth creationists might object. Whether they'd be justified is another question entirely. It's like the geocentricists denying all connection with those "nutty flat-earthers": "At least we aren't as far from science as THEM." Adam Cuerden talk 20:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll, do you really want to start up the wrong conversation here? Because you know, i'm feeling like there's plenty of delicious bait in your speech for creationists like myself. And it's cream filled to boot to add to the appeal, though peculiarily spicy, as if it were set aflame perhaps.... Homestarmy 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok sorry I edited my rant out.--Filll 03:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for both of you.  Civility, good faith, and humor just had a big group hug.  ;)  Gnixon 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common knowledge 

message: I can't help but think we can do far better than this. Have a look here - we can use such things as cladistics (no matter what method you use, morphological, genetic, fossils, etc, you get cladistic trees with high levels of similarity, and the genetic work was done after the morphological work, making it a test), Tiktaalik, etc. We need not waffle on so. Adam Cuerden talk 19:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with providing better examples of ways to falsify evolution in this section (since it sounds like that's what you're proposing). However, remember that we're limited by our need to rely on viable sources. We need to provide examples that notable sources have said are ways to falsify evolution; we can't just think of ways for ourselves and add them to the article, no matter how good they are (and I've seen some absolutely excellent proposed ones at Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft). -Silence 21:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsifiability 

message: I think this needs a conclusion paragraph.
I will start it on this page but I will need some help...
Cheers
Shniken 08:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conlusion Section 

message: Should somebody change the text to read "...percieved social ills, such as... homosexuality..."?
:Well, you would think so at first glance. However, it's a bit of a weasel word, but more importantly this sentence is reporting what a particular group says. If they think it's a sexual ill, and have said so, we can - and should - report that. Perhaps the best solution would be to find a quotable quote and quote it using, well, quotation marks to make it clear that wikipedia doesn't think homosexuality = social ill.
:SheffieldSteel 16:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality is a Social Ill? 

message: Problems with the Evolution panel:-
*The graphic is locking horns with the truth-fish image, and I don't think it's an easy task to make that look good on all the various browsers, resolutions etc.
*I don't think people who study evolution are necessarily going to want or need handy access to this page. There is a controversy, but it is not a scientific one. It is political and/or theological in nature. SheffieldSteel 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Evolution3 panel 

message: This is a fantastic article.  It would be a great service to the Evolution article if some of the editors here could replace its "Social and Religious Controversy" section with a summary of this article.  Gnixon 20:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one originally, indeed this entire article in part came from an entire sub-section that use to exist in Evolution. - RoyBoy 800 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ideally the lead (or a better summary) from this article would be copied and pasted back into Evolution. The separation of this article from its parent article seems excessive; and makes it harder to get to. - RoyBoy 800 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried that, but it was reverted by someone as too drastic a change to not discuss first.  Support for the idea on Talk:Evolution would be helpful. Gnixon 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarize for Evolution? 

message: I've made several changes to the intro and cut an entire paragraph from the section about atheism.  My reasons for each can be seen in the history, but several were related to NPOV and Original Research.  As this article grows, we need to fight anti-creationism POV and pro-evolution Original Research as hard as we fight the same sins in the opposite direction.  Gnixon 05:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and Original research 

message: ::"Many of the arguments against evolution have become widespread"
Widespread where? I added "in conservative regions", which has been lost in the shuffle. I can only assume "widespread" is speaking to the fact these arguments received national (international?) attention in the media. My thinking is, I do not consider a recent media blip about Intelligent Design necessarily constitutes "widespread" anymore. It has fallen off the radar since the court case (or shortly thereafter) and I think can only be considered widespread in sympathetic regions. Either way it needs a ref for clarification. - RoyBoy 800 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A better question might be, widespread when? Perhaps "Many of the arguments against evolution briefly became widespread" might be closer to the truth. Either way, we need a source. SheffieldSteel 16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of you about citations.  Don't have much time to work on it now, but  is a 2004 article mentioning schoolboard issues in California, Tennessee, Georgia, and Pennsylvania that seem to be partially based on arguments against evolution.  Evolution described as "controversial theory," "unproven belief," "theory, not a fact."  There must be some appropriate poll to be found somewhere. Gnixon 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm very skeptical that "briefly" or "in conservative regions" are appropriate qualifiers.  I've heard the arguments raised by conservative people in a very progressive region of New Jersey only a year or so ago. I also heard them within a conservative Lutheran community in Indiana 10-15 years ago. Gnixon 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Widespread?

message: (copied from Talk:creation-evolution controversy becuase I think it's very relevant here.  Gnixon 16:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Supporters/critics" of "evolution/creation" can be combined where appropriate in an NPOV way. Wikipedia's policy on being guided by "self-identification" is useful here. For example, it is unfair to refer to proponents of Intelligent Design as "Creationists" or "Neo-creationists" because they may object to those terms, arguing that ID is different from creationism. Similarly, since the term "evolutionist" is regarded as a pejorative by many who support evolution, it should be avoided. The objection is that it puts supporters of evolution on the same footing as "creationists," whereas they may prefer to differentiate between evolution as science and creation as religious belief (no such thing as a "gravityist," for example).  As I understand things, those who support creationism do not object to "creationist," but perhaps that term should be avoided, too, for balance. You raise a very good point, and articles like these often have a big problem with allowing a subtle bias in how groups are identified. See, e.g., Objections to evolution, where many sections start with "Creationists claim...," followed by unattributed arguments against those claims. Gnixon 15:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Creationist doublespeak.  Meh.  Orangemarlin 03:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OM, that's the second time you've used "creationist" as a pejorative to attack me, as though I'm going to be hurt and think you insulted my mother.  Presumably you hope the label will discredit me among other editors around here.  In any case, just like the last time you did it, I think it's pretty silly.  It wouldn't take much effort to look through the comments on my user talk page and article talk pages and decide I'm unlikely to believe in creationism.  I'm pretty frustrated, by the way, that you've gotten me to stoop to "defending" myself on that point.  As I explained in the comment on your talk page that you removed so quickly (presumably it got in the way of your barnstar), I think it's very damaging to Wikipedia when you hijack it to wage war against creationists.  If anything, making hostile comments about creationists will only chase them away from Wikipedia, but we especially need them around to help write articles like this one.  Gnixon 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm attempting to have Orangemarlin blocked.  Please ignore his silly comments.  Gnixon 01:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationist terminology

message: OK, I just wasted a good 30 minutes of my life.  The Journal Nature has an outstanding archive on its website, one where you can go back nearly 60 years to review a citation.  Well, I thought to myself, I wanted to read this article by Hoyle, oft-quoted, about the 747, tornadoes and such.  Lo and behold, in Volume 294, November 1981, page 105 there is no article by one Fred Hoyle.  OK, maybe there was some problem with the exact date or volume or page.  So I search Hoyle.  No article called "On Evolution."  Strange.  So I go to google and see who might use the reference, so that I can find the correct reference.  Well, not a single, I mean not one, academic peer-reviewed article used the reference.  In fact, outside of this Wikipedia article, the only place I saw the reference time and time again in basically Creationist tilted articles.  They all use this story, with the oft-cited Nature reference.  But, in fact, unless someone can tell me the correct reference, I think this is an urban myth.  Far be it for me to say this, but I think this is a bunch of BS.  In my search, I could find no proof that Hoyle actually made these comments about the 747, that he made them with regards to evolution nor with regards to anything.  Apparently, he gave a speech to some Astronomy society or another in the mid-80's telling the story, but I have no clue as to its context.  Because Hoyle believed in Evolution, he has become the prime example of an "Evolutionist" changing his mind.  But a review of some of his writing in the late 80's does not indicate that he believed in anything else but the Big Bang and Evolution.  I can't believe this.Orangemarlin 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, thanks for the research. Fascinating – now you've got me time wasting. However, you should read the good book, or at least the good FAQ: as this says, "As was the case with Quote Mine # 57, the creationists have frequently mangled the citation in passing around the quote.". More on topic, a brief summary and a more detailed discussion both cite the source. Should keep these bloomin' Boeings in their junkyards, mutter mutter. ... dave souza, talk 21:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I had access to the book.  I'd love to see if it's quoted right, but I will trust talk.origins over anyone else.  It's funny that the Nature reference is used in 100's, and I mean 100's of creationist rants about evolution.  A google search was telling.  It's interesting that Dawkins couldn't find the quote either, and I'm sure he can afford 10 graduate assistants to do the grunt work for him.  In the end, it is quote mining, but they only found fool's gold.  Orangemarlin 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a person investigates quote mining just a little bit, it soon becomes very apparent that creationists and others of that ilk are lying and dishonest, and cheaters. This however is completely inline with their other contradictory and hypocritical beliefs on many other issues. I have looked at several examples of this, some that go back much more than 100 years, and they are by turns funny and infuriating. This is particularly true to people who are misquoted like Dawkins or Gould who are made to sound as though they disbelieve evolution and think it is a fraud and a hoax in assorted quotes that creationists use. I might point out that there was a famous quote by Martin Luther (which I will only paraphrase, and possibly mangle) that in the service of his faith, it was permissible to lie. It seems that creationists take this advice to heart!--Filll 13:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that Martin Luther was quite an authority on lies. He apparently published a book entitled "On the Jews and their lies".--Filll 13:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fred Hoyle]] 

message: I agree with Fordmadoxfraud's reverts of the anonymous users edits.  Talk.origins, though a usenet resource, utilizes verifiable references in the discussions.  It is not, like old usenet, which were the ramblings of individuals with or without references.  Orangemarlin 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk.origins 

message: I'm just wondering if anyone knows what the story is with this article? Its history was copied here, and Silence rewrote the article, but I'm not sure why the old article still exists? Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 14:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still exists because people objected strenuously to its removal. So it remains, because the consensus was that it should remain. I and Silence had suggested that it be replaced with this current article, but others disagreed. So there you have it.--Filll 14:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I remember the AfD, but I thought that was before the article was moved here and rewritten. Or am I mistaken? darkliight[πalk] 14:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If memory serves me correctly, you are mistaken.--Filll 15:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not trying to cause an argument, just trying to get to the bottom of this - at least then we'll have a record in case anyone else asks later. I went and checked the page histories,  closed the Afd here on the 17th of January, then on the 22nd of January Silence moved the page across here per this talk page. I can't find any other AfD, and no real talk of deleting the old article after it was copied here either. I'm happy to nominate it again if this is the case and no-one wants the other article. I'll check back tomorrow sometime before I do anything though. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 15:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nominated for deletion. darkliight[πalk] 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that article was deleted months ago.  I don't even watch it any more.  I'll vote for deletion, so please post the page where the discussion occurs.  Orangemarlin 05:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought the same, but here is the AfD. Cheers, darkliight[πalk] 05:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Misunderstandings about evolution]] 

message: Shouldn't Grant and Grant's work on observed evolution in the Galapagos be cited in this section? 
This is a wonderful article, by the way.  Kudos to the contributors  PedEye1 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution has not been observed