Talk:Evolution/Archive 6

message: I deleted the last, concluding sentence (in bold) from the following:
:In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:
::"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
:placing the Catholic church at odds with the findings of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology, both of which attempt to provide scientific explanations for human behavior and consciousness.
It does not follow from the definition of "soul" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man."
--Johnstone 00:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted sentence regarding Roman Catholicism and soul 

message: Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. Do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation 3. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
So you simply remove everything that you disagree with?  We were still on topic.  This is not a spirit of cooperation!  Salva31
:I'm sorry Salva but I do not think that your comments to this talk page really qualify either as in "a spirit of cooperation".  I think that you have been guilty of many of those things you are accusing others of.
:You have broken the above rules in several ways:
*You've insulted people by the tone you've used in discussion.
*You've tried to intimidate those who don't agree with you by the shear volume of your text (on the talk page).
*You've not been civil or calm with your edits.
:As such although I have criticised others for deleting much of your text in which you do these things I would support them in moving all such material to a subpage in future.  Barnaby dawson 09:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's not do that. As long as Salva 31 keeps it short and simple and on topic, there shouldn't be a problem in future, right? Kim Bruning 10:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to be fair to Salva, I was pretty uncivil to him, I think. Graft 12:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Graft.  This is obviously a debate that is sensitive on both sides.  Likewise, I owe you an apology for the contributions I made in escalating the argument.Salva3109:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a battleground 

message: As I understand things, the phrase evolutionary creationism usually refers to the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution. However, if most people who use this term hold that God is directly involved in the formation of new species, then this indeed should be noted as having the emphasis on Creationism, with evolution only tacked on as a secondary concern.
I have been hearing the term theistic evolution used to describe the view that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. In this view, it is held to be religiously correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution. Is my understanding of this useage correct?  (BTW Reinterpreting ancient texts to match the findings of modern day science and philosophy is not new. Many of the medieval religious rationalists, such as Maimonides, did just this.) 
Please offer your ideas and thoughts at Talk:Evolutionary creationism. Thanks. RK 20:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
:RK, would Pierre Teilhard de Chardin be an example of what you are talking about? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution

message: Could someone tell me why I was reverted.
:Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you'll take the time to read our Introduction and the material linked therefrom on how you can contribute. From the look of your contributions page, this might be the first article you've worked on. Because of the nature of the subject, this article is frequently highly controversial. It has also been listed as a featured article, so many editors keep an eye on it to make sure that it remains of high quality. An article like this is a difficult spot to start editing Wikipedia.
:Please sign your Talk page comments, so we know who you are without diddling around with the history. You can use the notation --~~~~ to sign a comment with your name (or IP address, since you're not logged in) and the date. You might want to also log in so that your work will be recognized.
:I did not revert your contribution. However, the editor who did left a comment: "revert/casual comments by anon." While it is not entirely clear what s/he meant by this, my supposition is that s/he believed your contribution was not in keeping with the tone or content of an encyclopedia article.
:Some of the claims that you make contradict other material which has been cited to primary sources. Other claims represent what we tend to call "POV" content, meaning, opinions or speculations offered from an idiosyncratic point of view. They are also couched in idiosyncratic language. For instance, it is not clear what it means to call evolution a "force of nature" or a "semi-conscious trait" -- but this is clearly not the ordinary use of the expressions force or consciousness. Because this article is about a natural science topic, we're going to be careful to use scientific and philosophical terms accurately -- and in the ordinary senses of the words, evolution is neither a force, nor is it conscious or "semi-conscious".
:Finally, since this specific article is about evolution and not about religious opinions of evolution or the like, some of the material is simply off-topic here, and particularly in the introduction. The introduction of an article needs to be about the topic itself, and not about outsider responses to that topic: for instance, we would not start the article on Christianity by saying that Muslims consider the doctrine of the trinity to be "sacrilege".
:There is another article about the creation-evolution controversy, and I believe you will find it is quite well-researched and shows many examples of how an encyclopedia can approach the topic from a standpoint that reflects many points of view. --FOo 03:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Evolution is what one may call a semi-conscious trait. Semi-conscious meaning in the sense of a natural order. Or perhaps it IS in order of a higher consciousness.  At any rate evolution is not accepted by most people. It was and still is considered sacrilege in the sense of a personal God or have you. The scientific community at this date accepts evolution as fact and conducts scientific experiments proving it."  
Although I reverted your entries, I also moved it here to provide you the opportunity to respond.  Why?  The philosophical questions relating to evolution are often discussed here and (as above) are dealt with on another page as well.  You managed to select a complicated, somewhat controversial and often edited article as one of your first edits.  Please read the ongoing discussion on this page and then expand on your thoughts before attempting to edit the actual article.  The suggestions above are wonderful  Please also read Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (NPOV), dealing with fact versus opinion.  We welcome your thoughtful comments on this and other discussion pages and NPOV edits in articles. Look forward to working with you.WBardwin 05:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to my edit? 

message: Entry from anon user 69.208.212.163 on April 17, 2005 (see above). 
:"Evolution is what one may call a semi-conscious trait. Semi-conscious meaning in the sense of a natural order. Or perhaps it IS in order of a higher consciousness.  At any rate evolution is not accepted by most people. It was and still is considered sacrilege in the sense of a personal God or have you. The scientific community at this date accepts evolution as fact and conducts scientific experiments proving it."  
Although I reverted your entries, I also moved it here to provide you the opportunity to respond.  Why?  The philosophical questions relating to evolution are often discussed here and (as above) are dealt with on another page as well.  You managed to select a complicated, somewhat controversial and often edited article as one of your first edits.  Please read the ongoing discussion on this page and then expand on your thoughts before attempting to edit the actual article.  The suggestions above are wonderful  Please also read Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (NPOV), dealing with fact versus opinion.  We welcome your thoughtful comments on this and other discussion pages and NPOV edits in articles. Look forward to working with you.WBardwin 05:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon's comments/philosophy 

message: Im not an expert on evolution. No one is (except Charles Darwin-and he aint talking)No sooner did I leave this page it was reverted by a second person-with no explanation!
* Sorry.  I was looking up some information, and this edit did not make sense.  Can you explain please?  ---Rednblu | Talk 03:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It happened again.