Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 13

message: Can someone explain to me what purpose this image serves?  In its caption is a very lengthy explanation of why creationists feel evolutionism leads to support of eugenics.  In fact, without that caption, it would be nearly impossible for the reader to figure out why that image is included.  So why do we even need the picture, when the caption is doing all the explaining?  Move the caption to the text body at that point and remove the image.  I consider it a rule of thumb that when an image has a caption that runs on to extreme length,  you can be sure that the image isn't doing a very good job of explaining whatever it is it's supposed to be explaining.  (If the image was very informative as to its purpose, it wouldn't need the caption.)
I feel the inclusion of this image could be construed as an attempt to portray all creationism opponents as eugenecists.  Of what notability is the logo of a congress of a now-discredited and abandoned theory's adherents?  Notable enough for mention, but not notable enough for an image of this propagandistic nature.  Kasreyn 22:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remain puzzled as to the possible reasons for the inclusion of this image, as no one has responded.  Are there any objections to my removing it?  As I stated above, I cannot see the use of an image that requires a caption larger than the image just to explain its purpose; the entire point of including visual aids in an encyclopedia is to convey information that cannot be easily expressed or represented with text.  Either the caption should be greatly condensed, or the image should go.  Kasreyn 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One rule of thumb I found usefull.  Make a change and start a topic in discussion at the same time.  If you just start a topic without trying to implement the change, people are more likely to ignore you.  So if you feel strongly enough about this, make the change yourself and if anybody feels negative about that change, well, that's why this discussion thread is here.--Roland Deschain 22:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boldly following RD's advice - it is gone. Now we'll see if anyone cares to discuss. Cheers, Vsmith 02:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugenics-tree image? 

message: anyone want to bring up stuff on prehistoric fossils/discoveries, things that seem to contradict (by predating when humans were supposed to have evolved) the modern theory of evolution? like meister+leakey print, oklo reactor, klerksdorp spheres, patterson's kenyan humerus, etc. etc.
*Please provide detailed publications (in scientific journals in possible) of these discoveries and a detailed explenation of why it contradicts the modern theory of evolution.  If possible, find only printed sources.  Also double check the TalkOrigin website and see if these examples haven't already been discussed.
also, why not include an argument about whether or not the first life could/couldn't have been created in the 'primordial soup'. i.e though miller's experiments yielded w/ amino acids, and further experiments yielded 'pseudo'cells, proteins are far more complex, etc.
*The Theory of Evolution does not deal with the beginning of life.  In addition, this article already discusses this type of arguement (see  here).  Other fields of science (especially chemistry) are concerned with that question.  Go over to Abiogenesis if you want to contribute to the detailed controversy of that topic.--Roland Deschain 15:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fossil evidence? 

message: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds. Update article please. --Zzzzzzzzzz 10:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added that info to the US section as the study primarily addressed the issue of low acceptance of evolution in the United States.--Roland Deschain 04:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New poll

message: Should this article make any reference to popular culture depictions of the creation-evolution controversy? Shawnc 14:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture references 

message: Ah man, I really like evowiki, to me it is a more dynamic and easier to navigate version of talkorigins. Maybe just a link to their List of creationist arguments?  Nowimnthing 14:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I think their site is down, I will wait until it comes back up. Nowimnthing 15:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: evowiki link removal

message: A link which seems useful is here: are there no transitional forms? - I've not added it yet as it may be a bit specific, but it clearly addresses creationist claims. ...dave souza, talk 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not a bad page, but it doesn't look like it has been updated in a while and I think most of that stuff can be found on pages like List of transitional fossils. The links could really get long if we start linking to pages that debunk just specific creationist assertions rather than more general ones like talkorigins. Nowimnthing 20:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing link

message: Someone has opened a GA dispute entry on this article, at WP:GA/R. The accusation is that it has a bias and was primarily written by "fire and brimestone Christians", but considering the names I see on this talk page, I doubt most editors participating on this page would be so keen to let that happen. There seems to be some sort of edit war with one User:Rtc or something though, has this been just vandalism or what? Homestarmy 12:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Dispute

message: Ever since I marginally defended the historical status of young-earth creationist Raymond Damadian in the discovery of MRI, my posts everywhere on Wiki have been getting deleted and reverted for what appear to be spurious reasons. Similarly, a bio I submitted, John McGinness, drew an immediate delete petition from one of the usual suspects, Duncharris, and got mobbed by people from these very pages.  Or maybe they are mostly sockpuppets.  With proxy servers,  there is no way to be sure.  Classic case of passive-aggressive behavior.   
   
Checking the various histories,  this vandalism it seems to be from people associated with the anticreationist opposition here on wikipedia.  Whenever a new culprit shows up,  I check around the creationist/evolutionst history pages and sure enough, their name pops up.  What are the chances,  out of 1.4 million entries on wiki?
Ironically, they seem to have the wrong idea.  By chance, I am well-known in human evolutionary biology,  having discovered one of the few examples of classic Darwinian Evolution in Humans .  Evidently,  saying anything good about the occasional creationist (but not his ideas) is somehow heresy, even if you are an evolutionary biologist in good standing. Treating people like this only reinforces the paranoia of the creationists.
Last time I posted this here,  it lasted only until one of the usual suspects discovered it and reverted,  contrary to custom on talk pages. It will be interesting to see how long this lasts this time and who does the reversion.  As a reflection of how deeply the lines are drawn and how there are true beleivers on both sides,  I think it is quite relevant to this discussion,  which is about "controversy" after all. Pproctor 02:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retribution for defending Raymond Damadian

message: Is not NPOV... it carries negative connotations and is used in an exclusively negative sense nowadays.  203.118.158.142 00:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certain groups still use it but I agree that to many it has negative connotations. Is there an WP:NPOV other word you would prefer? JoshuaZ 00:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what word could be synonymous without being even more negatively loaded.  "Radical" is somewhat more harsh, and "evangelical", despite popularly being linked to fundamentalism, does not mean exactly the same thing and shouldn't be treated as a synonym.  Kasreyn 06:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "fundamentalist" 

message: One of the controversies in the minds of non-adherants to evolutionary theory is the nature of science itself.  Science has always been the study of things observable and repeatable.  This is why no one questions the theory of gravity: it is easily observable and repeatable.  However, evolution is not.  It seems this would be pertinent information to an informed and neutral article about the controversy.  Why is something so fundamental to the argument missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajdaman (talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 September 2006
Creation-evolution controversy#Limitations of the scientific endeavor --ScienceApologist 20:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate over evolution as science