Talk:Evolutionism (disambiguation)

message: : <<The darn dictionary is just wrong. Even if they all say the same thing, they're still wrong.>>
Yes the folks in Pubmed don't use the word evolutionism.  It is not in their POV.  If this were a Pubmed POV Wikipedia, you could leave it out.  Or you could say it is the 26 hits of junk--worth just 26 / 329481 of a Wikipedia page.  But is this a Pubmed POV Wikipedia?  :(
Dictionaries are not Pubmed POV.  :(( Dictionaries are NPOV. :(((((  That is their duty.  Hence, they have a lot of things contrary to your Pubmed. :(
For example, that definition that you complain about represents the POV of law.  
The POV of law is the POV of law--not the POV of Pubmed.  :(( By law evolutionism equals evolution.  That is not Biology.  That is law.  If you are interested, you can read the Peloza case.  In the Peloza case, the Judges disagreed about what the religion in speech was.  But all three Justices agreed that evolution and evolutionism are synonymous.  And to quote Circuit Judges FLETCHER, POOLE and THOMPSON:
: "Peloza uses the words "evolution" and "evolutionism" interchangeably in the complaint. This is not wrong or imprecise for, indeed, they are synonyms.(3)"
: 3. See Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Co. Springfield, MA. 1969). p.789 ("evolutionism: 1: a theory of evolution (as in philosophy, biology, or sociology) - See Darwinism 2: adherence to or belief in evolution esp. of living beings").
And yes! Tell me again.  The law is flawed.  The dictionary is flawed.  Flawed. Flawed.  Flawed.  They all are flawed.  :((  Are we agreed? ---Rednblu | Talk 05:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: <<Well, just to be clear, Pubmed doesn't have a POV. It's just a citations database.>>
Well that statement is one POV--in my opinion. :))  And that statement is not NPOV in the eyes of any court.  Hence, no court would look to Pubmed unless they wanted a Pubmed POV.  Do you think we have clarified the difference between our POVs here enough to draft a formal Wikipedia opinion survey to decide what is NPOV here?  As I see it, the question to be decided is something like the following.
Question to be decided.  Does Wikipedia NPOV require cited paraphrases of definitions in standard English dictionaries, such as Websters and Oxford English Dictionary, alongside definitions from standard science sources?
Do you have any suggestions to make the above question more clear or more accurate?  ---Rednblu | Talk 18:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[law]] is flawed 

message: I wondered if people were interested in useage in the vernacular. I ran a quick linguistic concordance in the BNC corpus and found a usage sampling:
  3485309: s true to say that &bquo; <evolutionism> &equo; is considered una
  3485413: hen they object to &bquo; <evolutionism> &equo; in_general . The 
  3486128: their rejection of &bquo; <evolutionism> &equo; at its face value
  3565597: m against Lukács ' <evolutionism> ( to the effect that dif
 28734287: ism of Comte , the social <evolutionism> of Herbert Spencer ( 182
 28990892: ragmatism , rationalism , <evolutionism> and nationalism of the V
 28991245: ent logic of empiricism , <evolutionism> , compromise and defence
 41394354: the turning point between <evolutionism> and functionalism and pr
 59445265: challenge less by denying <evolutionism> than by arguing that the
 59628280: raries . Concentration on <evolutionism> has led historians to ig
 59628551: spite Darwin 's efforts , <evolutionism> was at_first absorbed in
 59628715:  pre-Darwinian debates on <evolutionism> took place in the medica
 59629041: religious implications of <evolutionism> were symptomatic of the 
 59629085: gical battles . Darwinian <evolutionism> is an example of a theor
 59631211: from being a new threat , <evolutionism> was something that the c
 59636127: towards a limited kind of <evolutionism> ( see below ) , but he c
 59640875: me an outspoken critic of <evolutionism> . Louis Agassiz , then t
 59641393: rmine the plausibility of <evolutionism> . They wanted progress ,
 59641487: erve as an alternative to <evolutionism> . One possibility extend
 59645096: d the scientific world to <evolutionism> despite an almost univer
 59646010:  enough to convert him to <evolutionism> . Here the critical deve
 59647998:  converted most people to <evolutionism> . Darwin 's theory was c
 59648608: arded as an old-fashioned <evolutionism> . A wave of enthusiasm f
 59648704: equo; . Outside science , <evolutionism> replaced natural theolog
 59649420: ted in the liberal social <evolutionism> of the philosopher Herbe
 59653912: erialistic implications , <evolutionism> eventually became a cent
 59653983: n converting the world to <evolutionism> , but historians have be
 59654600: verted the whole world to <evolutionism> — but this was pos
 59654638: its own interpretation of <evolutionism> . To confuse matters for
 59654704: s no monolithic Victorian <evolutionism> , only a confusing mixtu
 59654816: e scientific community to <evolutionism> . Darwin succeeded where
 59654925: in converted the world to <evolutionism> despite the fact that hi
 59655132: ories . The transition to <evolutionism> must be seen as a social
 59655271: e variety of responses to <evolutionism> in different countries .
 59655379: o a Lamarckian version of <evolutionism> in the 1880s . These wid
 59655403: explain the popularity of <evolutionism> in_terms_of the self-evi
 59655645: ey had been suspicious of <evolutionism> because he could see no 
 59656056: ess , and used biological <evolutionism> to argue that Nature its
 59656405: ative thinkers to the new <evolutionism> . But most religious thi
 59656474:  non-Darwinian version of <evolutionism> . They sought alternativ
 59656506: nti-Darwinian versions of <evolutionism> flourished in the later 
 59656575: st Louis Agassiz accepted <evolutionism> , but rejected natural s
 59657231: etation is correct , then <evolutionism> may have played a role i
 59657480: ophy of Spencer 's cosmic <evolutionism> . If evolution were the 
 59657743: smissed as an opponent of <evolutionism> , Owen can thus be seen 
 59658087: s . But other versions of <evolutionism> encouraged the belief th
 59658136: wledged as the founder of <evolutionism> , but his theory of natu
 59658172:  to a basic acceptance of <evolutionism> , biologists ' attention
Hopefully this provides some data for you guys.  If you want more information (I've got lots more where this came from) drop me a line on my talk page.  I found this page through Random Article and am unlikely to watch it.  If this wasn't helpful - just ignore it. Cmouse 06:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concordance 

message: I just redirected this article to Evolutionism and I'll explain my reasons now: I arrived here because it was tagged for disambiguation-cleanup. At a first glance, I seemed like the classical case of a DAB getting inflated with more and more explanations for individual entries, and more and more links for each entry. So I started to read each entry, to see how to cut it short and which link (just one per entry) to preserve. But the first entry was covered by the main article; and the second entry was the same case; and every other entry was also covered in the main article. 
In the end, there was no entry at all in this DAB that wasn't covered in Evolutionism. So, this DAB was serving as an index, or as an expanded TOC-table of contents, but THIS DAB WAS NOT SERVING AS A DAB.
A DAB purports to guide someone who types an ambiguous term, towards the most appropriate article. In the case of someone typing "evolutionism", no article exists other than Evolutionism so satisfy that person's expectations or, if it exists, it is already well referenced within Evolutionism. Let me be more specific, entry by entry:
* Looking for creationism? You'd not be typing its opposite "evolutionism"!
* Looking for evolution? You'd not be typing a derivative, less common, word!
* Looking for Lewis Henry Morgan, Linear Progress, biological/sociological determinism, Arthur Lovejoy, the Judaism perspective? If you are looking for any of these subjects and yet you typed 'evolutionism', then you will be better reading what Evolutionism has to say on them (you can look at its TOC, where every one of these subjects is pointed out), instead of jumping straight away from evolutionism.
I believe I've made my point and have proved that NONE of the content that was on this DAB was of any merit. Thank you. --maf 04:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This DAB was not needed