Talk:Evolution/Archive 1

message: In the section "Differential survival", there appear to be two types listed, "natural selection" and "genetic drift". I believe that I have been told that there is a third, whose proper name I don't recall--something like the keyhole effect. It is when a population drop causes mutations to become much more able to propagate and dominate rapidly, I think. The name has something to do with the population passing through a narrow channel (narrow in terms of numbers of individuals). If this is correct, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I may be able to mention this intelligently :) Pagan 10:42, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is bottleneck, and it is a situation where genetic drift is is very strong (selection is weak). AdamRetchless 23:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Drift

message: Anyone able to lead me to sources (preferably accesible to layfolks) discussing non-linear evolution? I found scant mention of this, the influence or study of discontinuity, shock, disaster, etc in evolution, in Thomas A. Sebeok's Zoosemiotics, but apparently lost the note I wrote to myself. Hyacinth 18:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-linear

message: Hey everyone, I think it would be nice to have a brief mention somewhere (maybe on developments?) on the modeling of evolution on computers, like in evolutionary models of artificial life... there seems to be a lot of people working on computer models which show evolving virtual creatures like animats or using the basic ideas of evolution to arrive at software solutions which could have a small mention (like 1 one sentence). Is there anybody who knows more about this or who thinks it is worth a mention? (not wanting to enter in any controversy :-)). Thanks144.136.150.158 06:35, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer models 

message: I removed the last sentence of the "neo-structuralist" section. I have no idea of what the author was trying to say, and the grammer was off. Since I couldn't make any sense of the sentence, I couldn't fix the grammer. Hence, it is here. 
: This line of inquiry is criticised by classic Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, who perceive the intrusion of certain kinds of ordering in an evolutionary scenario a step away from strict materialism based on random, non-directed processes.
Huh? First, is that supposed to read "who percieve the intrusion...AS BEING a step away from strict materialism..."? Since the terminology is so strange I can't really tell.  What is this "intrusion of certain kinds of ordering"? Is there a problem with "strict materialism based on random, non-directed processes"? No biologist would say that evolution is a directed process. AdamRetchless 22:03, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neo-structuralist

message: Someone with edit privileges in this age of censorship should please fix the outline to Evolution.  The current outline is
*History of evolutionary thought
**Present status
**History evolutionary thought
**De Chardin's & Huxley's theories
If you see no flaw in the above outline, then please ignore the following suggestions.  Otherwise, I suggest the following:
*.
**History evolutionary thought ....... (the subcategory) should be changed to  "History of evolutionary thought"
and
*History of evolutionary thought ....... (the primary heading) should be changed to some phrase generic enough logically to include the three subcategories, one of which is "History of evolutionary thought"
and
accordingly you may want to change the subcategory "Present status" to some phrase that would be a logical subcategory of whatever you propose for the primary heading.  ---Rednblu 23:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry, that was my revision.  I can see the edit was made in good faith and it does need a tidy/rewrite.  I took one look at User:Rednblu and panicked a bit.  I have since been told off by both User:Lexor and User:Mike_Jones.  Just remember the NPOV. :) Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:19, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a good man.  All is well.  ---Rednblu 19:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested fixes for someone with edit privileges to make to the outline of [[Evolution]] 

message: If this site wishes only to repeat the hash collected in the k-12 textbooks and thereby somehow implanted in your feeble heads in perpetuity, then you are doing a fine job.  If a tenet of this site is to communicate facts, then why don't you apply a little balance, rather than simply searching for fact upon fact upon fact that support your favorite hypothesis.  That a discussion on evolution could take place without one word on Alan Wilson is beyond comprehension.  There have been extensive recent modifications to the "theory" of evolution.  Instead this article prattles on, excusing Darwin, excepting this notion and that, until you see assembled the biggest house of cards I've ever seen.  What a mansion.  It's become so comical, it should be on Letterman and Leno.  To hold so vainly to the errors of people like Darwin, who had none of the modern tools for examining DNA, is nearly like the charletans who claimed the world is flat, even though Galileo had the tools to absolutely prove them wrong.  If you want to make a social statement that fits your philosophy, then quit hiding behind Darwin and all this post Darwin manipulation.  Otherwise, wake up and use your brain.  That's why God gave it to you. ;) User: 63.201.80.247
----
Which "Alan Wilson" did you mean?  Did you mean the Allan Wilson  who with several others examined DNA samples of people from all around the world--red, yellow, black and white--and concluded that people living all had a common black lady for a great-great-...-grandmother?  You can find the picture of your black great-great-...-grandmother posted in Wikipedia by clicking on Eve.  You will find at the bottom of that Wikipedia page on Eve that Allan Wilson's 1987 publication with Dr. Cann and Dr. Stoneking in Nature is cited to chapter and verse.  But perhaps you had in mind a different "Alan Wilson."  Which "Alan Wilson" did you mean? ;)  ---Rednblu 15:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't You Feel Like a Bunch of Lemmings 

message: This is a well written article and I want to nominate it for feature status, but unless there is a picture it will probably get shot down.  I am not good at working with pictures and making sure they meet copyright requirments, but if someoene else adds a picture I will nominate this article.  I suggest a diagram with divergence of different types of organisms throughout earth's biological history, but if anybody sees any other good ones go ahead and add it.  ---Chubtoad 22:37, 20 Jul 2004
*This article blows chunks and contains some truly horrific prose. No way should it be nominated. Graft 02:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are not going to speak to me, then don't speak about me either.  I have amply demonstrated to at least one rational person that I am not a troll, so kindly dispense with the ad hominem attacks and try to make this article NPOV, if you can.  Frankly, you only hurt your own position when you attack this way.  I at least recognize my POV and understand that on a highly polarized issue like this one it will take persons with both points of view to bring out an accurate article.  Respectfully - DavidR 14:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to me, you haven't amply demonstrated to me that you are not a troll - until you have demonstrated that your intent is to contribute meaningfully to this article, which you have to this point failed to do. If you would suggest the changes that you think are appropriate to the article, it would go greatly towards increasing your credibility. Your continued failure to do so strongly justifies Dunc's label. Graft 15:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I have already done so.  Sorry it takes me a while to post meaningful content.  I can respond to an illogical attack quickly (and have no intention of replying to such again) since the flaws in logic are obvious.  DavidR 16:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for Feature article 

message: I reverted your addition.  I think the complaints about evolution are discussed elsewhere.  There must be a place for them in the Creationism article, or if not, perhaps there is a Creation Science article where they might fit.  I just don't think that spot is the right place to voice them.  Please speak up here if you disagee. --DanielCD 15:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should questions about the theory of evolution be discussed on a page other than one about the theory of evolution?  This truely seems the correct place for them.  Respectfully - DavidR 12:37, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't necessarily agree with the exact text you reverted, but I feel an edit would have been better than a revert.  Nevermind, I'll post my own thoughts after a bit.  I'm engaging in discussion first since some people in here seem to have itchy trigger fingers on the revert button.  Respectfully - DavidR 20:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother yourself; I'll put it back for you. I was trying to be helpful, offering help to the editor to try to find the proper place for it.  I'll try not to be so helpful from now on.  I just don't think that particular spot is right for it.  Another place in the article perhaps?  I didn't necessarily mean it had to go in another article. --DanielCD 20:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops! looks like someone else reverted it! Imagine that! --DanielCD 21:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: All of which depends on what you consider to be "life". In any event, all that "origin of life" crap is mostly smoke and mirrors, anyway. There's no really good experimental justification of the RNA world (like, for example, a self-replicating RNA enzyme), and people are still hashing out whether the RNA world came before the protein world or vice-versa. For now, this is mostly nonsense, and any discussion of it should be HEAVILY qualified. Graft 15:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This page should be an overview, and following the rule that in biology there is always an exception to the rule, it is worth ignoring it here but mentioning it on the "subarticles" to avoid unnecessarily confusing readers. The definition of life is somewhat blurred anyway.  Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not, I say... There may always be an exception to the rule, here, but there's no "rule" to speak of - only vague propositions, which even as they are proposed in journals are heavily qualified. Why should we ossify them? I think it's perfectly valuable in an overview article to say that there are areas of disclarity - I don't think it will unnecessarily confuse anyone. The whole "history of life" section is far too sure of itself to give a realistic picture of the state of our knowledge. Lack of certainty is also important information for an encyclopedia to convey. Graft 17:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by 67.68.243.23 

message: The Evolution (disambiguation) page is one of the best disambiguation pages I've seen.  Can anyone spell out the reasons why this article shouldn't be renamed Evolution (biology) so that Evolution points to the disambiguation page?  The disambiguation page can be expanded a little to be a better overview of all facets of evolution, and this article, renamed, might provoke less controversy and vandalism from creationists.  --Samuel Wantman 05:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea!  At least that would be logically consistent in making the page symmetric to Creationism (theology).  ---Rednblu 07:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because it is standard practice here to place articles under the most common and obvious title — this is the "least surprise rule". Evolution, unless qualified with a modifier (such as "cultural evolution") is pretty much universally taken to mean biological evolution. In short, the current placement is correct. (BTW, as you say, the disambiguation page is excellent. Do we have a Wikipedia:Featured disambiguation pages? It ough to be listed there!) Tannin 07:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would agree with you that the obvious meaning of evolution is biological evolution.  But apparently that is not the obvious meaning to most Americans.  Here is a link to some historical polls.  Apparently, to the 63% of the 2025 Americans polled in the September 9-12, 1999, NBC / Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the Hart & Teeter Research Companies, evolution is not obviously a matter of biology but rather a matter of religion; accordingly, they voted for teaching creationism "in teaching the origin of man."  In view of all of the above, I propose as a hypothesis that what is acting here on Wikipedia is simply the evolutionists' view on religion forcefully censoring in a public forum the expressions of the creationists' view on religion. You and I may feel that religion should be silenced on the evolution page.  But the empirical evidence suggests that silencing religion on the evolution page violates the "least surprise rule" for 63% of the 2025 Americans polled in 1999. So as Mr. Wantman suggests, clarifying that the discussion is about Evolution (biology) might satisfy the "least surprise rule" better--assuming that the civilized world would allow a pedagogical remedial gesture to assist the 63% of Americans who are "slow learners."  ---Rednblu 14:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does anyone know of an example of another article that has a corresponding disambiguation page as lenghthy as Evolution (disambiguation)?  It seems from JUST from the contents of the disambiguation page, that Evolution can have many meanings, and it is not a foregone conclusion that someone searching on Evolution expects to get the biology article.  Isn't that reason enough to rename this article Evolution (biology)?  --Samuel Wantman 20:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds right to me.  ---Rednblu 01:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text:  An interesting poll, Samuel, but this is not the Americapedia, it's an international encyclopedia. The peculiarities of any one nation's religious views cannot be permitted to dominate. Tannin 22:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't understand your point.  I'm making no claims about any religious views dominating.  I am not a creationist, and am not trying to put forward any particular view.  Perhaps you are referring to the comment by Rednblu and not mine.  --Samuel Wantman 08:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes. The USA is particularly marginalised on this issue. There is relatively very little controversy over this issue in the rest of the heathen world. Mintguy (T) 22:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that there is potential for a page at evolutionism (which presently redirects here) describing how the word is used by creationists (essentially as a synonym for evil atheists); I think I have read on talk.origins that it was invented by some lawyer chap at some trial, but I have seen it used by American scientists Jerry Coyne springs to mind.  Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't this article named [[Evolution|Evolution (biology)]]? 

message: Lst27, I'm not seeing the connection between Evolution and "White Seperatist" movements, let alone "Cosmotheist concepts" (whatever those are).  Evolution appears to me to have about as much to do with cosmotheism as astronomy, continental drift, and kinetics do (that is, not much).  And it has even less to do with white seperatism.  Can you explain what I might be missing? --Saucepan 18:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:White Separatist movements and Cosmotheist concepts 

message: Do we really need this section as it is? Moreover, creationism (as well as intelligent design and evolutionary creationism) is not a religion nor is it a theory. It's a belief system. I say let's leave creationism to the creationism entry writers. People who visit this wiki page intend to learn about evolution not creationism. If they wanted to learn about creationism, they should go to that wiki page. I think it is more appropriate to entitle this section "Opponents of evolution" and link-list opponents of evolution. Adraeus 06:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: <<Ever since Darwin provided a persuasive mechanism for evolution, religious conservatives have claimed evolution is a lie.>>
I am curious what part of your above edit you would call 1) "minor" and what part of your above edit you would call 2) Neutral Point of View.  A reference for the statistics implied in the above sentence might help. :)  I personally agree with the partisan attack in the above sentence, (Bravo and cheers!), but I do believe that it must leave the Wikipedia page.  ---Rednblu 07:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution & religion

message: I don't want to get into a huge argument over this because it's just not that important, BUT. Gould theorizes that major transitions between genera (or the creation of radically different genera) happen sporadically. This is well and good and maybe even true. However, it is incontestable that evolution occurs in general as a continuous process. It doesn't always have dramatic phenotypic effects, but it IS always occurring. This is wholly compatible with Gould's thesis and he would have agreed 100%. Punctuated equilibrium is meant to describe "macroevolution"; minute changes in gene frequency and the introduction of new alleles occurs continuously; thus, the word progressive (i.e. gradual) is appropriate. Graft 18:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but should not punctuated speciation and macroevolution on geological timescales also fall under the rubric of evolution?  if you only allow progressive evolution, then you preclude those concepts.  I mean sure, in many usages, it is a progressive process, but in some cases (or on some scales) it is not.  so we can't use the word to define evolution, at least not without qualification, right? -Lethe | Talk
I don't think that progressive is at all appropriate, since it seems to indicate a movement towards a goal.  It is better without it.  Noisy | Talk 19:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Right. While "progressive" does refer some sort of change, its definition refers to some sort of goal. Since Wikipedia is not in the business of publishing original research, it's best to assume there's no intelligence, aside from us, that gives evolution momentum towards a goal. I don't think evolution has always made things better so "progress" and "advancement" are inappropriate descriptions of evolution's nature. Evolution is haphazard which is a provisional truth unknown to proponents of Creationism/Intelligent Design. See definition. Adraeus 20:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The sense in which it's being used is "continually in progress", i.e. "in motion", but I see your point. Graft 21:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "gradual" seems sufficient to cover the intended meaning without the undesirable connotation of goal-oriented, not to mention the connotation of "good" associated with "progressive.SMesser 14:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Compounded or accumulative - I dunno. There's no real aggregation going on when you have, say, single-base substitutions. It's just movement from one state to another. Over time evolution can be said to have resulted in an aggregation of complexity, but to some degree it's also meant huge periods of loss of complexity (e.g. mass extinctions like the one following arrival of homo sapiens). I don't like 'gradual' much, either, since it implies a plodding, regular pace that may not be appropriate. I think it's going to be difficult to find one adjective that's appropriate here; maybe it's best left alone? Graft 18:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive 

message: Hello,
The most recent revision to the Evolution article replaces the sentence "Most scientists estimate the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old."  with "Some scientists estimate..."  This revision is misleading since it de-emphasizes the overwhelming dominance of the majority opinion.  I suggest therefore that the article be reverted.
I'm a Ph.D. physicist and a member of the American Geophysical Union as well as the American Physical Society.  EOS, AGU's monthly newsletter makes regular reference to events over a few million years in the past.  Physics Today, the monthly newsmagazine for APS has less frequent articles on geology, but those that do appear there are well-researched and support .  The 4.6 billion year estimate is well-supported by studies of radioactive decay, models of the Earth's, Moon's, and solar system's formation, observations of other stars, sedimentary and tectonic observations, as well as other data.  Professional scientists do not consider the 4.6 billion year value to be controversial, and it is an estimate only in that some will prefer a value of 4.5 billion years.  I go to at least two professional conferences per year and have yet to meet a scientist who questions this estimate.
See for example,  for a specific statement on the age of the Earth in the context of evolution,  for a proposal to use our understanding of the Earth's age to search for life-bearing Earth-like extrasolar planets, and  for evidence for surface water 4.4 billion years in the past.
:Yeah, we're aware.  Unfortunately it often goes into turf wars over who controls these pages.  We're pretty firmly in control of this page, though others are sites of more conflict.  Creationists aren't scientists, so yes the use word scientists as opposed to "some scientists" or "most scientists".  The page is frequently under attack by anons. Dunc|☺ 00:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to Most Scientists Estimate? 

message: I'm a bit confused writing this history stuff - it's hard to ken how people thought in the absence of knowledge you take for granted. Thomas Hunt Morgan did a lot of work in the 20s and 30s establishing that genes were carried by chromosomes. But Avery, et al, didn't prove that DNA was the transforming principle until 1943. How does this compute? Were people unaware that chromosomes were composed of DNA? That seems like it couldn't be true.
Lots of stuff still missing from this history bit. Graft 06:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morgan, Avery, etc. 

message: In my opinion, this edit is defective by any reasonable Wikipedia NPOV standard for at least two reasons: 1) deleting entirely a cited and documented relevant characterization of a POV about Evolution and 2) deleting a non-science POV from a page where a non-science POV is extremely relevant.  What are your opinions on this matter?  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the editor was correct to delete the paragraph in question. It is paragraph that is irrelevant on this page, and would belong on the Creationism page. — Asbestos | Talk 20:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wouldn't NPOV require a short paragraph in Evolution citing to a significant POV on "Evolution"?  ---Rednblu | Talk 21:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph doesn't do that. The fact that Americans elect creationists to school boards doesn't make this article more NPOV.  — Asbestos | Talk 21:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see that someone deleted a second paragraph that made the "view on evolution" clearer. I will copy in the two paragraphs.  ---Rednblu | Talk 21:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm not certain that NPOV is the issue here. I'd say that this is a lengthy aside on the current state of affairs of those arguing for creationism. The article mentions some info on creationism, but that's not the primary aim of an article whose title is Evolution. Such information should go on any of the sites listed in the section, namely Creationism, Evolutionary creationism, or Creation vs. evolution debate (particularly the last one). This article is not about the debate between creationism and evolution, so lengthy asides on how many Americans believe in creationism, or how many people are elected to school boards, is not relevant to this page. Links to the debate are already in the section.  — Asbestos | Talk 21:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have in the past lamented the fact that this page is overly focused on creationism at the expense of science, but neither do I think that the dispute over creationism should be confined to "creationism" pages. This article does discuss the social impacts of the biological theory (which were profound, world-shaking effects). Creationism is an important part of that and should not be excluded. It is not the primary aim of this article, but it is a secondary aim. Graft 21:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The paragraphs don't explain the theory of creationism, merely how the two theories are entangled. Asbestos proposes relegating social considerations to "creationism", thereby treating "evolution" as a purely scientific matter and "creationism" as mostly political. That is, the controversy exists only because of Them Pesky Creationists. I don't find that to be NPOV. These are two competing theories, regardless of whether they are two competing scientific theories. Both of them have enormous social currency (at least in the crackpot hyperreality that is the US). It would be wrong not to give a fair treatment of that controversy on both pages, or else to find some suitable middle ground. Graft 22:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Entanglement" is the clearest NPOV statement that can be made about the religious POV on Evolution. In my opinion, the current Evolution page summaries of the religious POV on "Evolution" are factually wrong and statistically wrong--and that is only my secular take on the religious POV on "Evolution."  The cited and documented summary of the entanglement however should qualify as NPOV and sufficient for the Evolution page in my opinion.  Details of what "creationism" is should be in the creationism Main articles, I would say.  After all, what else is there but "entanglement" between religion and evolution?  They have no science in common, and they have no religion in common.  What else other than "entanglement" could possibly be NPOV about the religious POV on "Evolution"?  Are we getting somewhere?  ---Rednblu | Talk 22:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I find Graft's characterization of what I was saying rather unfair. I specifically said that this would be preferably placed on the Creation vs. evolution debate page, not on creationist pages in general (the links I quoted were all those from the religion section). That said, I disagree with your statement that "the paragraphs merely explain how the two theories are entangled." This is not correct: the paragraphs do not address evolution at all. The paragraphs merely offer some factoids about how many people think that creationism should be taught in school. I don't have any problem with them, I just can't see what they would be doing on this page. The disclaimer by the Oklahoma Textbook Commission, on the other hand, is directly related to the evolution page, and I could see its inclusion.  — Asbestos | Talk 00:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm.  I thought Graft was commenting fairly on the two paragraphs straight.  I can see your point though.  The first paragraph above does not extract from the cited poll the information about evolution.  I have edited these two paragraphs immediately following to represent fairly what I read in the cited polls.  What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 01:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The social effect of evolutionary theory is great and needs a section, but lets keep it strictly neutral, i.e. not written by a creationists, though they may approve of /recommend improvements to the text.  The above text was POV in a classic "helpfully clarifying you misconceptions" way which is not what we need; simply state that there are religious objections and detail the religious movement that advocates such beliefs. Dunc|☺ 23:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  By all Wikipedia standards of NPOV those two paragraphs were NPOV.  With what specific set of words do you find fault?  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I personally have no problem with your comment.  In fact, I personally agree with it. :))  But the Wikipedia NPOV challenge is to represent the POVs that the significant proponents hold.  So, it seems to me that to be accurate, the Evolution page should have a few paragraphs that state the religious POVs that fundamentally disagree with the idea of "evolution."  For the same NPOV reason, the Creationism page cannot just represent the pseudoscience views of the creationists.  Already 90% of the Evolution page is about the science POVs on "evolution."  That is fine.  So the above two paragraphs is about right for accurately depicting the religious POVs that think that evolution is no better an explanation than creationism for how people got here.  The German and Dutch religious POVs on "evolution" that you mention could easily be summed up in one sentence: "Religions outside the United States generally accept evolution as the origin of the diversity of life on earth."  The
current Evolution page does not accurately represent the religious POVs that think that evolution is no better than creationism at explaining the origin of species.  Consequently, the Evolution page should have a NPOV violation tag on it.  I will not put it there.  But I will support anyone who does put it there.  ---Rednblu | Talk 10:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Evolution]] is not just science--according to [[NPOV]] policy 

message: In my opinion, the Evolution page should have a short statement about the religious POV on Evolution.  Also in my opinion, empirical data is better than generalities.  What those two paragraphs state is one significant cited and documented religious POV on Evolution without resorting to name-calling or uncited and undocumented generalities that say nothing--like the current paragraphs in the "Evolution and religion" section.  Hence, in my opinion the current Evolution page is in violation of express NPOV policy.  I will not put the "NPOV" violation tag there myself, but I will support anyone who does.  Alternatively, we could work out a cited and documented statement of the religious POV on Evolution.  ---Rednblu | Talk 21:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The social effect of evolutionary theory is great and needs a section, but lets keep it strictly neutral, i.e. not written by a creationists, though they may approve of /recommend improvements to the text.  The above text was POV in a classic "helpfully clarifying you misconceptions" way which is not what we need; simply state that there are religious objections and detail the religious movement that advocates such beliefs. Dunc|☺ 23:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  By all Wikipedia standards of NPOV those two paragraphs were NPOV.  With what specific set of words do you find fault?  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I personally have no problem with your comment.  In fact, I personally agree with it. :))  But the Wikipedia NPOV challenge is to represent the POVs that the significant proponents hold.  So, it seems to me that to be accurate, the Evolution page should have a few paragraphs that state the religious POVs that fundamentally disagree with the idea of "evolution."  For the same NPOV reason, the Creationism page cannot just represent the pseudoscience views of the creationists.  Already 90% of the Evolution page is about the science POVs on "evolution."  That is fine.  So the above two paragraphs is about right for accurately depicting the religious POVs that think that evolution is no better an explanation than creationism for how people got here.  The German and Dutch religious POVs on "evolution" that you mention could easily be summed up in one sentence: "Religions outside the United States generally accept evolution as the origin of the diversity of life on earth."  The
current Evolution page does not accurately represent the religious POVs that think that evolution is no better than creationism at explaining the origin of species.  Consequently, the Evolution page should have a NPOV violation tag on it.  I will not put it there.  But I will support anyone who does put it there.  ---Rednblu | Talk 10:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional discussion of the two paragraphs 

message: The paragraph offered by Chardon,
:In countries where the majority of people hold strong religious beliefs, creationism has a much broader appeal than in countries where the majority of people hold secular beliefs. A series of polls in the US in 1999 suggested that over half of American voters supported the teaching of creationism in public schools alongside evolution. 
I think is NPOV and relevant.
One of my main problems with the paragraphs offered by Rednblu was that they appeared to be defending against something, which he made clearer in the second draft. The sole purpose of the paragraphs proposed were to state that it's not just fundamentalists who believe in creationism. I don't think such a defensive stance is relevent to the article at hand. Chardon's proposal, on the other hand, is in the positive: there is a correlation between religious beliefs and the appeal of creationism. It would be good, though, to get cited evidence for this correlation.  — Asbestos | Talk 10:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: defensive stance.  Not at all.  Defensive stance against what?  .ôô.  The first paragraph describes the world outside the United States where, apparently, creationism is associated mainly with Christian fundamentalists.  But in the United States creationism does not correlate with Christian fundamentalists because most of the religious people who want creationism taught in public schools are not Christian fundamentalists.  We have to go with the empirical data, do we not? ---Rednblu | Talk 11:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It contains an appeal to the majority and obfuscates about the word creationism, which has a variety of possible meanings and not just as is often assumed, young Earth Creationism. It should be mentioned that creationism is a bigger movement in the US than elsewhere, but the US is not (contrary to the belief of some) the centre of the Universe. There are some non-partisan polls somewhere too. Creationists tend to ask loaded questions. Dunc|☺ 11:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the evidence that you want to include is not evidence for the number of people that believe in creationism. It is evidence for the number of people who think creationism could be held alongside evolution in schools. Therefore it is not a response to the paragraph above it. And I stick by saying that the paragraph you want is taking an unwarranted defensive stance: it is, as Duncharris says, and appeal to majority, attempting to disprove an unmentioned idea that only Christian fundamentalists support creationism.  — Asbestos | Talk 11:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope.  You are both wrong in this case. :(( And I understand your emotional attachment!  This has nothing to do with Christian fundamentalists.  If you delete fundamentalists from the first paragraph, then you should delete that bad word also from the second paragraph. :)  And this has nothing to do with appeal to the majority.  For if you look again, there is not even a hint of a trace of an implied suggestion that the majority is right.  If anything within the context of this page, the implication is that the voting majority in America is dead wrong.  Can't you see the facts?  I will excuse you both somewhat in this case because I see that the link is down.  Immediately following are a couple of sample polls in the meantime.  Would you say that People for the American Way is non-partisan? 8))  ---Rednblu | Talk 14:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Paragraph

message: The issue is clouded by a whole pile of confusions. The first confusion was the introduction of the loaded term "fundamentalist." Contrary to the assumption that seems to be the majority on this page, fundamentalists are neither the majority of creationists, nor the leaders of the battle to keep creationism in the schools. While Christian fundamentalists are creationsists (mostly young earth creationists), the fundamentalist, if he were politically active, would be working to bar the teaching of evolution in the schools. The fundamentalists gave up that fight. Instead they home school their children or enroll them in a private school. The broader and more centrist base of religious viewpoints is to simply keep a place at the table for creationism. They would argue that blocking any reference to a creator tends to make science a god.
This is further confused by the lack of understanding of what a fundamentalist is. In most people's minds nowadays, fundamentalism is a negative concept, associated with terrorists and abortion clinic bombers, while in actuality Christian fundamentalists are law-abiding people who wish to keep their faith pure (perhaps to a fault). They have strengths and weaknesses, but, with a few exceptions, they are not leaders and coalition builders in the public policy arena. They tend to withdraw from these.
Another confusion is that creationism is usually understood (by both extremes) to only refer to young earth creationism, while creationism has many variants, including many creationists who accept evolution as a possible tool in God's hands.
This is further confused by a confusion of evolution, which is a secular, scientific theory; with evolutionism who claim to be secular but exhibits many religious characteristics. The religious evolutionists is at the opposite extreme of the spectrum of the Christian fundamentalist, but thinks in black-and-white, very much like a fundamentalist (other than being VERY politically active). The evolutionist religiously seeks to deny any vestige of creationism from ever being taught. ALL creationists, including those who accept the scientific theory of evolution have a problem with evolutionism.
A good example of evolutionism is the militantly evangelistic talk origins web site, which claims to be about evolution and claims to be secular. If you remove every element of propaganda from that web site, you don't have much left. Of course true believers cannot see how the science has been merged into a religion. One could also check out my talk page and find a fundamentalist evolutionist comment from John Woolsey, who leveled his guns without even knowing my viewpoint. Incidently, I've disagreed with Christian fundamentalists too, but never had one so discourteous or so utterly black-and-white.  Pollinator 13:16, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
:That's a good point, and the paragraphs that Rednblu wants to add seem to be specifically referring to this sentence in the Evolution and Religion section: "This view is commonly referred to as creationism, and continues to be defended by some religious groups, especially Christian fundamentalists."
:If the statement is POV, then it should be removed. I'd be inclined to think that the sentence per se isn't POV, though I don't have footnotes that show that fundamentalists are among the most vocal in defending creationism (which is all the sentence is saying). I agree that the word "fundamentalist" brings up negative connotations, but, as you state above, such connotations are ungrounded. If there statement is correct, and, as you say, fundamentalist is a neutral term, then there should be no problem with it, and it shouldn't need two paragraphs rebutting it.  — Asbestos | Talk 14:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamentalism