Talk:Level of support for evolution/Archive 2

message: [The author misread the article, and said something unintelligible.] Washod 10:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Scientific Trends

message: rm - "However, more of the general public in some countries  finds creationism a more convincing explanation than evolution."
===Reasons for removal===
*Hinges on weasel words. WP:WEASEL
*Unreferenced. The paragraph is referenced but these references do not apply to the removed content:
:#For example, in the US Presidential Race in 2000, both George W. Bush and Al Gore's initial political platforms included advocating the teaching of both evolution and creationism in science classes (George W. Bush, The Last Relativist, Timothy Noah, Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics, Slate, Oct. 31, 2000).
:#UK Prime Minister Tony Blair appears to have been supporting efforts to establish schools teaching creationism in the UK (Revealed: Tony Blair's Link to Schools that Take the Creation Literally, Nicholas Pyke, The Independent, 2004-06-13)
:#In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.(We put the clock back a 1000 years, Peer Meinert, dpa -German language).
:WP:RS, WP:V
Thanks, Monkeyblue 12:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rm "General public in some countries..." 

message: *Hinges on weasel words. WP:WEASEL
*Unreferenced. The paragraph is referenced but these references do not apply to the removed content:
:#For example, in the US Presidential Race in 2000, both George W. Bush and Al Gore's initial political platforms included advocating the teaching of both evolution and creationism in science classes (George W. Bush, The Last Relativist, Timothy Noah, Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics, Slate, Oct. 31, 2000).
:#UK Prime Minister Tony Blair appears to have been supporting efforts to establish schools teaching creationism in the UK (Revealed: Tony Blair's Link to Schools that Take the Creation Literally, Nicholas Pyke, The Independent, 2004-06-13)
:#In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion.(We put the clock back a 1000 years, Peer Meinert, dpa -German language).
:WP:RS, WP:V
Thanks, Monkeyblue 12:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for removal

message: Seems like some serious weasel words going on here.  Particularily this line:
"It is also important to remember, as Guy Woods writes, "It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world."" 75.153.231.20 06:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason to include this sort of material is that otherwise the article was in danger of deletion for being too POV.--Filll 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Validity section

message: I've added a coatrack tag because in the opening sentence the scope of the article is modified away from discussing the levels of support for evolution towards a description of the evolution controversy debate in the United States. Addhoc 16:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reread it. What are you talking about?--Filll 16:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section isn't really about "Level of support for evolution", it's about "Use of the term "level of support for evolution" in the US creationism-evolution controversy". Addhoc 17:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, what? The article is about the level of support for evolution. Not surprisingly that has a heck of a lot to do with the creationism-evolution controversy. I'm afraid I don't see the coatracking issue here. JoshuaZ 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a lot of information about the US because that is where the controversy is most fierce, and therefore the most statistics and other information are available. It does include information from other countries and it will slowly add more and more from foreign countries as it becomes available or is uncovered.--Filll 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I agree that an article that mostly concerns the creationism-evolution controvery should focus on the US. I'm not entirely convinced that an article with the title "Level of support for evolution" should focus on the US to the same extent. Overall, I mostly agree with comments by ScienceApologist in this section, although I gather the article has developed since then. Addhoc 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When this was examined repeatedly by the community, the community did not agree with ScienceApologist's point of view.--Filll 19:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coatrack Tag 

message: Without wading into the many controversies above, I think that this article should be renamed to reflect that it is pretty much a US-only issue. I note that non-US opinion and the like are treated peremptorily (since out here in ROW it isn't an issue) so I think the name should reflect that this is about a US debate. As it stands the article title makes an implicit argument that looks ridiculous outside the US. Eusebeus 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to disagree that it is only a US issue (although I admit that fundamentalist Christians do yell louder here than outside of the US)--Britain has a nascent Creationist movement starting up.  Of course Muslim Fundamentalism equals Christian Fundamentalism in strict inerrant understanding of religious documents.  So, maybe it is a lot US-centric, but it's not a problem exclusive to the US.  Orangemarlin 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Living as I do in Britain, I think you would be hard-pressed to make that case and, at any event, the nature of the article addresses the debate pretty much exclusively as it has been framed within the US. There is no - absolutely no - debate about evolution in the school-curriculum, for example. This is not a US encyclopedia; article titles should reflect such specifically national-centred debates. Eusebeus 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would beg to differ, and direct you to Truth in science and  to start with, for example. However, the UK and the US are not the only places dealing with this. I would suggest you read  and  and Mustafa Akyol and Adnan Oktar to get an idea of what is going on in Turkey. There are many other examples in other places, however, such as Poland and Holland and Australia, among others.--Filll 18:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fair enough. I am not convinced, but your point is well-taken. Eusebeus 00:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that attacks on evolution are dying down in the US and other places. Obviously, there has been some efforts to promote anti-evolution in the UK, sometimes with the encouragement or tacit approval of your administration. Attacks on evolution appear to be increasing in Turkey. Many Islamic countries outlaw the teaching of evolution, even in universities. In many Islamic countries, evolution is presented as an evil crusader plot to destroy the piety of young Muslims. Also, in the US, I suspect that the Discovery Institute and other organizations are far from giving up, as you can see by surveying the articles here in WP. So what should be a non-issue, really is just bubbling below the surface I am afraid.--Filll 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name 

message: Just because you support Evolution does NOT mean you can flame Creationists. I've seen a lot of that. Saying that Creationists are stupid is FLAME. Saying that they are wrong is not. Because I have seen some very untrue assumptions, like that creationists lie to get away with saying what they want. Is it a lie to tell you that the words you are reading have never been written? No. Is it a lie to tell you that there is absolutely no evidence supporting creation or anyting other than Evolution? ABSOLUTELY! And that's pretty much what I've seen around here.
However, I believe they are right. I am a Creationist. A Christain. Please don't flame me.
Do you know the odds for a SINGLE protien molocule to "occur" by random chance? It's a number so large we can't get our minds or hearts around it. So I'll give an analogy:
There is an ant. This is a very slow ant and can only move one inch at a time. He is also a weak ant; he can carry only one atom at a time.
In the time it would take for a SINGLE protien to "occur" by random chance, that ant could have carried over THREE HUNDRED BILLION universes.
And if you want an entire SCIENTIFICALLY oriented, BALANCED discussion on Creation and Evolution, Creation Facts of Life is one among many other good books and TV series.
Just because you believe one thing doesn't mean you can randomly insult the other with no evidence whatsoverer. I'm a Creationist and I'm not insulting Evolution. I'm just saying it's wrong.
Every single Creation/Evolution discussion I've ever read, heard, or seen has come out with creation on top, and used perfecty legetiment scientific evidence and perfectly legitement logic.
Did you know that Darwin had a chapter in his book called "Difficulties With The Theory?" Maybe you should read it. Here's a quote:
"To think that the human eye appeared by random chance is absurd in the highest degree."
The Sword of the Heart 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution of the eye and Argument from ignorance --Mr Fink 03:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's funny, the only NPOV statements were added by you. ornis 08:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is verifiable. It is in a major publication. That is what is needed for WP, and that is what we do. This article include many recent statistics, and many historical statistics. It contains so much material on the creationist side that it has been accused of being biased to creationism and unfairly favorable to creationists. So please, take your rants someplace else.--Filll 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entire discussion is unbalanced. 

message: Creation-evolution controversy is a term used by creationists to confuse the public into thinking that there is a scientific controversy between creationism and evolution, when there is absolutely none. Somehow, this should be made clear. As it currently stands, it is a weasel term. Wikipediatoperfection 03:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SA, it has been made clear. Go away with your contentious counter-productive edits and your sock puppets, please.--Filll 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who is SA and what is your thing with sock puppets? I have edited the article to use neutral language to clarify the term, I hope it will be suitable to both of us. Wikipediatoperfection 04:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My goodness. Please, this is uncalled for. What is your problem with the phrase "creation-evolution controversy"? Certainly that page, many editors seem to have no problem with it. It is not a scientific controversy, but a social controversy. Do you have a problem with acknowledging a social controversy, and using the standard terminology that is common in public discourse?--Filll 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just what is uncalled for? I simply stated that I happen to agree with a statement. The term has gained widespread use in the press, but seems to originally have been a ploy pushed by the creationists to push their religion. Note, I am not putting my personal feelings in an article - just agreeing with another editor on a talk page. As well as cautioning against incivility and a personal attack. Vsmith 02:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While certainly a part of the wedge strategy, the term has currency in political, and popular discourse, Wikipediatoperfection's edits were attempting to deny this, by suggesting that the term is used only by creationists. ornis (t) 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which is clearly wrong. Indeed, I think I've heard Ken Miller use the term (although don't quote me on that, since I could be wrong). Use of the term is about as npov as we are going to be able to get and any other term would probably be awkward and have additional problems. JoshuaZ 02:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm in agreement with you that it is not a scientific dispute, since one side relies on science and the other on magic.  But it is NOT a political dispute, and even it was, it's only so in the US.  It's essentially a religious and philosophical debate.  That is, one side believes in supernatural rantings, and one side accepts scientific methodologies to understand the natural world.  Being an American, I do vote against anyone with a religious agenda (and I'll even ask them about it in private or public meetings), but I don't vote for fundamentalists (of any stripe), and Creationism is just a byproduct of anti-education, pro-Christian, right wingers.  Rarely do any politics center on Creationism itself, but on a whole range of Christian fundamentalist propaganda.  But if everyone wants to use politics as the center of the argument, go for it, I just think it's wrong.  It's a religious attack on freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and whatever else that defines us vs. say Yemen.  Of course, that leads to my theory that fundamentalists of any stripe (Christian, Moslem, Nazi, Communists) act in exactly the same way, but I really digress.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In many ways I agree with you. My main thing is that in this article it be made clear from the get go that it is not a scientific debate. If you have a better way to make this clear I'm all ears. If you want to change the intro on creation-evolution controversy page by all means hit the talk page. Wikipediatoperfection 18:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Creation-evolution controversy" 

message: I have prepared a new table at User talk:Filll/supportsummary2 which could be used to
#augment this article
#replace some of this article
#create a new article, possibly with new material added
What should I do?--Filll 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that stuff is there is to keep the article from being deleted. Articles have to be WP:NPOV and this one had a very rough time.--Filll 11:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Table 

message: I edited this in probably not the best way, maybe somebody else could correct that. But when reading it i thought: "What?" This person believes scientists should choose their theory based on how many people believe in it? And at the same time saying, they should choose the one less people believe in because: "..almost always the majority is wrong.." If you take all possible statements you can think of, i guess there might be a few persons to believe in pink cows, or mass suicide. The majority is right in most cases.
On the other hand: it doesn't really matter if the majority believed in the theory of relativity (i guess most people don't believe there is a connection between gravity, speed and time if you put it in everyday words), you can't build satellite tv, GPS or nuclear bombs without it.
-—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.18.6  (talk • contribs) 04:39, 3 August 2007
:The reason that stuff is there is to keep the article from being deleted. Articles have to be WP:NPOV and this one had a very rough time.--Filll 11:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gospel citation at the end 

message: Small changes do imply large changes under some common circumstances. If there is some selective pressure for the changes to go in one direction, the changes will add up. Such a condition can happen, for example, under a gradual climate change or in evolutionary arms races. Even if there is no selective pressure at all, the changes will tend to diverge further and further from the starting point. Small changes will not lead to large changes only if there is stabilizing selection for organisms to remain as they are, or if there is too little time for much to happen, or if there are genetic mechanisms limiting change. 
Look at the word 'imply'. Imply does not mean it is proven. That is a priori. That is not science. A lot of theories have been intuitively 'implied' but after experimentation were found not to be true. Science is not based on implications, sorry. There is no experimentation that has shown that large morphological changes can result from and accumulation of small ones. None. Go ahead show me. And this should be stated in at least one of the articles so kids know the truth. Now you can say we assume but you cannot say there are mountains of evidence etc. That is total bull. Imbrella 23:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I thought talk origins wasn't a reliable source?  You appear to be unaware of the tone of scientific contributions.  Scientists will never be certain in print, because they are aware that all conclusions are tentative.  Despite this, firm conclusions, and firm scientific work, is done all the time.  Perhaps you should consider an undergraduate degree in biology, when you will come to realize that the tone of scientific entries are always much softer than the convenient, confident, fallacious rhetoric found in creationism.  There's bull alright.  WLU 23:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You clearly do not understand science or evolution or speciation or peer-review or scientific evidence or scientific data or very much of anything in this area. Please edit something else because you are wasting everyone's time here. You have been shown to be wrong; very wrong. You do not even understand you have been shown to be wrong. So go away please. I am doing my best to warn you away before you get yourself in trouble here. --Filll 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha!  That's funny.  Drug trials are different from evolutionary biology research.  Of course they're going to be different.  Please be WP:CIVIL.  WLU 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  HA! They both SHOULD use the scientific method. Or maybe you are correct. Are you saying evolutionary biology research does not use the scientific method. It does not have to have quantitive analysis of data:
Form wiki
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning,[1] the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
note the word MEASURABLE. which really means able to be translated into quantitaitve concepts. 
Think more about that whole GED HS diploma think. I think they will teach about all of this there. Imbrella 23:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please grace some other website with this ungrammatical, poorly spelled incomprehensible juvenile spew. You are doing nothing but embarassing yourself here. This is not a page for debates. It is a place to discuss the articles. You have suggested no concrete changes nor have you provided any WP:RS sources for any of your views.--00:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Move on. I have so much more science background than you it is not even funny. Please leave before your ability to edit WP is restricted.--Filll 00:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Filll - how 'bout we don't feed the troll?  We're not getting anywhere and Imbrella isn't going away.  All this original research is just soaking up space on the wikimedia servers, and we both know it's not going on the page itself.  Why waste the time?  WLU 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: DNFTT.--Filll 00:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From talkorigins: