Talk:Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

message: The entire point of this essay (according to the author, that is) is that Creationism and Evolution can peacefully coexist.  I fail to see how that classifies it as anti-creationist.  I'm not trying to push any sort of agenda, so if you want to leave it incorrectly categorized, then go for it.the1physicist 02:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Creationism Category 

message: Should these quotes be transferred to wikiquote? 134.83.1.225 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think they fit well both here and at wikiquote.  There's not so many so as to overwhelm the article, and they do add something I think.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: The following made little sense to me:
:The phrase "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is often used by those opposing creationism.
:It argues that Christianity and evolutionary biology are compatible.  Despite this, many use the phrase in a way which the original was not intended.
:Many would argue that "in biology" includes anthropology, and just three years later Richard Dawkins published The Selfish Gene arguing for universal Darwinism.
I've rephrased it, taking the inference that Dawkins is being cited because of his support for atheism rather than theistic evolution, though I don't know if he has actually cited or used the phrase. Note that universal Darwinism is a redirect to Darwinism, and seems to be a term associated with Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea rather than Dawkins. .. dave souza, talk 09:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obscure statement

message: A little factual beckground: 
* The phrase "creationism or its variant called intelligent design" is obviously biased, because it takes it for granted that ID advocates are nothing but CS advocates in disguise, and that spelling out this notion is an objective assessment of facts.
* So, with Revision of 13:10, 4 December 2007, I appended to the a.m. phrase the warning , with the explicit motivation "Biased opinion - needs balancing".
* With edit of 07:35, 13 December 2007 (that is the revision immediately prior to the Current), User Guettarda removed the  warning, with the following rather careless motivation: "no, it doesn't [need balancing]".
As I consider the  warning inserted by me sufficiently well motivated as not to be removed out of hand without prior discussion, and anyway certainly not with such non-existent motivation as the one non-provided by User Guettarda, not only I am going to reintroduce a.m. warning, but I am going to append a:  at the top of the whole section The phrase of main article Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. 
Also, the present is a formal warning to User Guettarda, or whoever may be concerned, under Wikipedia:Edit war prolicy WP:EW not to try and engage in any further "counter-revision", without prior discussion on this page and section. 
Thank you for the fair play. Miguel de Servet (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  tag links to the Wikipedia:Describing points of view essay which starts by stating that "The article should represent the POV of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented." Suitable sources have now been added. .. dave souza, talk 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Phrase 

message: The article referenced at PBS has numerous transcription errors; I found only one in the PDF. I recommend the PBS reference be eliminated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.56.37 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External references 

message: A series of recent edits  have added Citation Needed tags to the article, without making clear what claims in the text need citations.  As I read the concerned paragraph (I was responsible for much of the paragraph's present form), all the claims in the paragraph draw from the text of Dobzhansky's short article and, in accordance with WP:DUPCITES, combining such citations to a single source "is the best practice on Wikipedia". --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the editors who are adding Citation Needed tags please provide full explanation on the tags (  ) and/or by discussing the problems they perceive on the talk page.  Since they are IPs this is the only way I know to contact them.  I will have to revert their edits until they reply. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed tags