Talk:Creation and evolution in public education/Archive 1

Archive 1

tags

Considering that the content of this page came from the controversial/NPOV Creationism page and nowhere else, I think that the tags should come with it, initially, at least. I removed some things I considered to be POV. -Fleacircus 19:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the warning should be removed if the POV stuff was removed.Paul3144 00:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i concur. Ungtss 02:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

in the absence of any dissent, i am removing the tags. Ungtss 21:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just the POV stuff that I saw. Putting tags back. If Creationism had the tags, and you split off a daughter page, how can it be that both are now free of POV? -Fleacircus 19:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

nobody's said there's any pov ... there hasn't been a word of complaint. two people want to remove the tags here, and nobody has made a peep about pov. you yourself said you don't see any more pov. i don't see any, and nobody else sees any, so i think the tags are unnecessary. also, the main page also had consent to remove the tags, and no longer has then.. removing again:). Ungtss 15:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I say there's POV: the article picks and chooses court cases; it does not state what sort of creationism was involved in the court cases. I did not say that I removed ALL of it. I clearly dissented. Tags going back. -Fleacircus 22:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what exactly do you want to make it npov? those are THE three cases on the topic -- feel free to add others if you like. not sure exactly what you mean by "type of creationism" -- scopes + arkansas were just about evolution, and LA was young earth -- would you like it to say that it's young earth? show me the pov so we can kill it together:)! Ungtss 22:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent developments in state education programs

In this section were two statements which I marked as being disputed. They are: In 2004 the town of Dover, Pennsylvania passed a law requiring the teaching of intelligent design in concert with evolution. and On August 9, 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education approved a draft of science standards that mandated equal time for the theories of "evolution by natural selection" and "intelligent design.

The reason for the first is the fact that the school board decision didn't require the teaching ID, but rather required that biology teachers read a statement that would make students aware of intelligent design and an available reference book called "Of Pandas and People" about it. There was definitely no actual teaching of intelligent design.

I dispute the second statement because not only do the dates contradict, but the Kansas school board decision revised school standards so that criticisms of evolution would be allowed, and that science would be defined as: “Science does so while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and/or observational data and testable by scientists through additional experimentation and/or observation.”

The above definition was actually more consistent with the standards of other states, despite the charge of a radical redefinition science. In the both cases is there no teaching of intelligent design, especially in the case of Kansas.Btboy500 01:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this be renamed "Creationism and evolution in publics schools"? --Axon 22:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the UK, public schools are VERY different things to what they are in the US, in fact, completely the opposite. CheeseDreams 22:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is explained in Public School, maybe a link there would be good. The title of the article itself is better with public education, I think. -Fleacircus 23:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

evolution becomes prominent

i have a pov concern here and i would like to work it out together, Mr. Fleacircus. I understand that it is your pov that evolutionism is science and creationism is non-science. however, creationists believe that creationism is science and evolutionism is non-science. npov makes room for both opinions. the "evolution becomes prominent" section you wrote ... which was accurate and GREAT ... showed that science educators introduced evolution in an effort to combat scientific ignorance ... but it leaves the implication that creationists are in FAVOR of ignorance, and AGAINST science. i understand that that is your pov, and you may well be right. but i think it's important to mention that creationists think that evolution is NOT science, but a religion all its own -- and that CREATIONISM is science -- and THAT is why they are fighting to get creation in the classroom. is there some way we can insert that idea in a mutually agreeable fashion? Ungtss 17:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I feel that the replacement that you wrote was even more POV. I have added an NPOV header. CheeseDreams 21:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

is anyone interested in working together on coming to mutually agreeable solutions, or do we all just want to keep declaring edit and tag wars trying to argue our own points of view? Wikipedia only works if we FINESSE each other's writing. will anybody help me with that? Ungtss 22:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The edit you made resulted in a statement that presented Creationist views as points of FACT not opinion. This is EXTREME POV. CheeseDreams 22:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, your even more recent edit seems to me to be NPOV. CheeseDreams 22:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BUT. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REMOVE NPOV TAGS until BOTH sides stop contesting the issue, so you should have waited for Fleacircus to consent/ not bother reverting.

I don't see the POV in what I wrote. The BSCS did put evolution into textbooks as part of a mission to improve science education in America. It can't be POV every time something happens that relates to the unavoidable fact that evolution is widely accepted in the global scientific community while creationism is viewed very poorly.

Despite this, I was very careful not to advance the issue as part of the creationism vs. evolution debate. It's just there to explain why evolution suddenly sprang up in textbook in a lot of places it had been kept out of before. I was careful not to ascribe reasons to the BSCS beyond neutral socio-political things, and I said "perceived" inferiority. I think I left the language quite open to the idea that evolution is trash, and the NFS got it wrong, and so they foisted a junk theory onto states that knew better. It's not necessary to reproduce the creationist vs. evolution debate at every single turn of events.

I wrote this earlier but I think it still applies to the current edit. What was wrong with what I wrote? -Fleacircus 22:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

nothing was wrong with what you wrote ... i thought it was accurate and right on point, and brought out another side of the issue that had been lacking before. but i also think that it INCIDENTALLY leaves the implication that evolution is science and creation is not -- and that creationists are in favor of ignorance. that's the only thing i'm out to fix. how's the latest version?

You can't really make such a broad statement about what the creationists believed. Please don't try to advance the idea that Creationists as a group since 1957 have been motivated by a deep understanding of the science of evolution and all they really worry is that it is presented too strongly in education. -Fleacircus 01:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

that's the pov i'm objecting to. they ARE motivated by scientific integrity. your pov is that they prefer ignorance to science. their pov is that creationism is science -- in fact, more scientific than evolution. i'm not saying who's right, but i'm saying that both povs need to be represented here. i would greatly appreciate it if instead of deleting my attempts at achieving npov, you altered them to make them fair. Ungtss 02:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The quotes are fine but I still don't think they'd belong here since this is not the evolution vs. creationism debate page. They are slightly relevant to the NSF and the decision, though, so I guess they can stay. They're too long IMHO, though.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped inserting a creationist POV everywhere when you feel there's some implication that makes creationism look bad. NPOV doesn't always mean "all POVs get equal space" when it's preferable that a neutral version without any POVs exist. I'd appreciate it if you altered what I write before adding your POV. -Fleacircus 18:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

in hope of npov ...

the page currently lacks any reference to criticism of gradualistic evolution within the mainstream scientic community, such as the following cited, quoted statement of J. GOULD of Harvard, published in a mainstream scientific journal:

"I well remember how the synthetic theory [of evolution] beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution.....I have been reluctant to admit it--since beguiling is often forever--but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy." Paleobiology, Vol.6, 1980, p. 120.

i would like to find some way to introduce this quote in an npov way, which does not piss anybody off -- hopefully with another pro-evolution quote to address it effectively and balance it off. any takers? Ungtss 21:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I consider this quote to be 100% POV in this article. It should go in Creation vs. evolution debate. It isn't about education, its about the argument against evolution. If it was about education it would be "hmm, the teachers are starting to side with creation" or something. Likewise pro-evolution quotes. This isn't about pro/anti evolution/creationism, its about education and what is allowed in it. Commentators whose quotes are valid include political journalists, judges, lawyers, defendants/ prosecuters, education personel, involved in the debate about teaching this thing, but only when relevant to the case itself, rather than to the validity of evolution/creation themselves. Don't change the purpose of this article. CheeseDreams 22:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not even a quote for creationism except by deception. Gould is talking about an advancement in evolutionary theory. Possibly because it is his own contribution, he's playing it up. What he's saying could be represented as: "evolution was completely broken before I fixed it." Here's another Gould quote that describe's Ungsst's quote perfectly:

"Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand." [1]. -Fleacircus 23:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gould's just talking about punctuated equilibrium, and refinement of evolutionary theory within science, not a rejection of evolution altogether [2]. In general it's not difficult to find a scientist of flavor X who thinks that the teaching of X in schoolbooks is woefully behind the times. Gould's bringing up of his grad-school textbooks is more of an amusing aside and I don't think this quote has much connection to public education.

There's no evolution vs. creationism matter in this quote except possibly by deception. Is that why you want to include this quote, Ungsst? -Fleacircus 22:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and Ungsst: you're not by chance a proponent of the wedge, are you?

hey fellas -- wikipedia is supposed to be fun:). there is currently a section that says that "evolution" came to prominence -- there are, however, two theories of evolution -- one is the gradualistic "synthesis," and one is punctuated equilibrium. the vast majority of texts teach the synthesis as tho it were fact, while a good number of mainstream, non-creationist, non-intelligent-design evolutionists think that the synthesis is dead, and punctuated equilibrium is a more valid alternative. can we introduce that ***Fact*** in a fair way?

Fleacircus, I am a proponent of the Truth, wherever that leads, and i don't give a rat's a** whether creation, evolution, or something else turns out to be true, because the Truth is the Truth and there's nothing i can do about it. but i will not tolerate dogmatic individuals pretending that their bias is fact and imposing it on the ignorant, because dogmatism is intellectual death, and i will fight dogmatism on all sides until my dying day. Ungtss 23:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

how about we put both gould quotes in there -- to show that the holes creationists are punching in gradualism do not necessarily negate evolution itself, but only gradualism -- and perhaps texts should reflect that ambiguity? Ungtss 23:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Answer is still no. You're basically trying to insert a creationist argument into the article based on misrepresentation of a quote. Putting in another quote isn't the way to fix that. And where do you get the idea that "creationists are punching holes in gradualism"? Gould is no creationist. -Fleacircus 00:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another source that deals with that quote: [3]. -Fleacircus 00:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

basically all creationists HAVE is "holes" in gradualism -- abiogenesis, macroevolution, and irreducible complexity are all arguments aimed at gradualism -- but evolution is not necessarily gradualism -- evolution can be PE, too -- and the creationist arguments against gradualism don't work against PE. you feel me? Ungtss 05:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Once again, I do not consider that quote to be on the subject of Education. If it is about varying types of Evolution, then it does not belong here. Look at the title of the article. Look at the title of Creation vs. evolution debate. It belongs in the other article. NOT here. CheeseDreams 11:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

alright ... let me state my concern clearly: the article implies that the synthesis model is unversal in academia -- and in fact, most schools continue to teach the Synthesis as Fact. But the synthesis is under fire from BOTH evolution-types and creation-types.

so how about this: since we now have "the rise of ID," why don't we also have "the rise of PE" -- it seems to me that both are refinements of the older theories ... PE acknowledging the missing links, and ID acknowledging the age of the universe and lack of evidence for God. but gradualism is STILL being taught as fact in most circles. what if we say something like, "recently, the universality of the synthesis model of evolution in education has come under fire by both evolutionists and creationists -- evolutionsts who assert that PE is a more reasonable explanation, and ID proponents, who assert that some mention should be made of irreducible complexity ..." my ONLY concern here is that the article implies that the synthesis is universally accepted by academia ... and that is not accurate. Eh? Ungtss 20:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Try not to use quotes. Creationists have a nasty habit of taking them, missing bits out and twisting them for their own purposes, hence the NPOV problem. Evolution by natural selection is accepted as fact by the scientific community. Granted there are a handful of dissenters on the fringe, (but it is arguable whether these are part of the scientific community since they don't contribute anything to science; they are all religiously motivated). The theory of evolution (i.e. model of evolution) is constantly being argued about and refined from within the scientific community, but its central tenets are not in doubt. Dunc|☺ 21:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

okay -- that sounds fair -- so may i describe it exactly as i think we agree on -- dodging the pov question of whether either qualifies as "science" -- just saying that PE developed from the synthesis, ID developed from biblical literalism, and there is some dispute as to which should be presented in texts? Ungtss 21:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

<<Try not to use quotes. Creationists have a nasty habit of taking them, missing bits out and twisting them for their own purposes, hence the NPOV problem.>>

1. Evolutionists have a nasty habit of claiming that creationists misuse quotes FAR more than is actually the case.
2. I thought that a recommended route to NPOV on Wikipedia was to use quotes!

• Conclusion: Quotes are good, except when creationists use quotes of evolutionists against them!

<<Evolution by natural selection is accepted as fact by the scientific community. Granted there are a handful of dissenters on the fringe, (but it is arguable whether these are part of the scientific community since they don't contribute anything to science; they are all religiously motivated).>>

This is nothing more than bigoted, unsubstantiated, and false, assertion. Creationary scientists are part of the scientific community as much as evolutionary scientists, they do contribute to science, and they are not all religiously motivated.

<<The theory of evolution['s] ... central tenets are not in doubt.>>

Then why does the debate exist? Because there are those that do doubt it!!

<<ID developed from biblical literalism...>>

I don't believe that this is necessarily true. Michael Denton, for example, is an agnostic.

Philip J. Rayment 02:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. don't go there. I removed the paragraph as it was nonsense. There are many arguments within evolutionary biology. e.g. the one between the British and the Americans over the relative roles of selection and drift; e.g. group selection before that was run over by the Williams revolution, e.g. punctuated equilirbirum when it first came out. But PE is part of the modern synthesis; it is an example of a refinement to evolutionary theory, and does not contradict it. Now that should be mentioned in history of evolutionary thought but it's not relevant here unless you want to push your own POV. Dunc|☺ 18:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

no pov here, my friend, but i do think that PE is both relevant and important to the education section:). mutation and natural selection are undisputed -- everybody agrees they happen today. the issue between creationists and evolutionists is ORIGINS -- whether or not we have common ancestors with the animals. for THAT, we are dependent entirely on the fossil record. the fossil record does NOT show sufficient transitional forms to justify gradualism. PE reconciles that FACT with evolution. Creation asserts that that FACT is consistent with creationism. Most SCHOOL TEXTS gloss over that FACT, and teach instead that gradualism is supported by the fossil record -- i know mine did -- and that is false. we don't have transitional forms. creationists want the FACT that the fossil record lacks transitional forms in the textbooks ... they want the ambiguity recognized ... and they want PE and ID presented as ALTERNATIVE explanations for the fossil record. any way to work that in fairly? Ungtss 22:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then NPOV the text you have written in the paragraph above (directly above i.e. 22:11 14th Nov 2004) and put it in the article. That it is a fact that the record lacks transitional forms is disputed (e.g. Archaeopteryx (transitional dinosaur/bird), e.g. that wierd monkey-man thing they found recently on some island about a month or so ago), so this must be phrased "creationists alledge that there is a lack of transitional forms, which they wish textbooks to mention" CheeseDreams 22:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

thank you sir -- that's a splendid idea:). Ungtss 23:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In public education, concepts are often simplified. That's not because scientists are trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, it's because things get awfully complicated and children are inherently stupid. The same thing occurs in all subjects, be it chemistry, history or anything else. Of course, no-one complains about the fact that you were "lied to" in your chemistry class.

On [[common descent], there is more evidence for common descent than just the fossil record; phylogenys being the most obvious. The fossil record for humans isn't brilliant, there have been far too few of us hanging around in the past; but it is good enough to establish common descent from morphology.

However, it is clear that this article focuses on legal cases and perhaps it should also take into account attempts by creationists to create school level textbooks, e.g. Of Pandas and People, Icons of Evolution and probably stacks and stacks more, knowing the creationist propensity to publish their rubbish. But that approach should be literature-based rather than issue-based. Dunc|☺ 00:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yeah ... you're right. they do simplify things down of necessity. at the same time ... perhaps there's a danger in oversimplifying the issues ... Ungtss 00:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In text books, concepts are often out of date, because the textbook writers are frequently not the scientists doing the research. Philip J. Rayment 02:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AiG quote

I was happy for the AiG quote to be moved to a more suitable location, but the reason I put is where I did and not where Ungtss has put it, is that AiG's stance on this is not made with exclusive reference to the United States (although the source is in an article that is discussing the U.S. situation). Philip J. Rayment 15:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hmm ... excellent point ... can you think of a more suitable location, short of starting another endless "advocacy quotes pro and con" section? Ungtss 15:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, that's why I put it where I did and hoped someone else would find a spot!  :-) Philip J. Rayment 13:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Spoon feeding

The paragraph and its following quote spoon feeds the reader by making a conclusion as to causes:

"This all changed after the launch of Sputnik in 1957, when the National Science Foundation was created to advance scientific education in America to correct the perceived inferiority. As part of this movement, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study placed evolution in a prominent role of biology instruction, and so evolution became widespread in textbooks. The National Academy of the Sciences concluded that there was absolutely no scientific basis for creationist beliefs:..."

It needs to be either substantiated or removed. Considering that scholarly writing is less than sparse that Sputnik was the catalyst for evolution's current place in American education, I doubt it can remain.--FeloniousMonk 17:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

brilliant observation, sir. any substantiation for this? Ungtss 17:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who are the IDers?

This statement is made: "The movement includes people of all religious faiths as well as agnostics." --> can this be backed up? Joshuaschroeder 17:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the statement along with some other things (from both 'sides') that doesn't belong in this article.--Sicking 02:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The Movements to teach alternatives to evolution in schools section

This entire section feels a bit missplaced and slightly POV. It is more a description of the ID movement then related to efforts to teach ID (or other alternatives) in schools. This section in particular had an aweful lot of POV to it:

"This view apparently comes from a misunderstanding of Johnson's views expressed in his book, The Wedge of Truth - Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism. This book states that true science is driven by Empiricism, not the philosophy of Naturalism. Good science accepts whatever the facts tell us, and does not force the facts to fit a naturalistic philosophy."

I edited it to hopefully be more NPOV. --Sicking 01:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Made some more edits, mostly removing stuff that belongs in the ID article rather then this one. Hopefully it is still NPOV enough.--Sicking 02:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I broke down the poll a bit futher. But I'm not sure it should stay in at all. A single poll is hardly 'accepted fact' but rather research. Especially one that leans towards what the makers of the poll want to show. --Sicking 03:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The point of view that Johnson is wrong

Cut from article:

He erroneously concluded that the evidence supporting it was extremely lacking. At the same time, he did not hold to a reading of Genesis that creation necessarily occurred in six 24 hours days.

Is it a fact that his conclusion was reached "erroneously" or is this someone's point of view? According to Wikipedia:POV, opposing points of view on controversial subjects should be attributed to their adherents. Wikipedia must not say that one side in the dispute is right and the other wrong.

Please someone dig into this and find out which opponent of Johnson is arguing that he "erroneously concluded" evidence for evolution was "extremely lacking". Then, put the passage back in. Something like:

• According to Lee Ma Tee, of the Realism Institute, Dr. Johnson's objections have no merit. "Evolution has plenty of evidence supporting it," argues Profesor Lee in his influential tome Evolution: Evidence That Demands a Verdict (SpringTower Books, 1998)

Obviously, a real person and a real quote will be needed. I just created a sample to give you an idea of what to look for. I'm suggesting that Wikipedia endorse Johnson *or* dismiss him. Uncle Ed 16:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

How about: According to H. Allen Orr of the Department of Biology, University of Rochester "I'm afraid that, if Johnson is your guide to evolution, paleontology, genetics, or embryology, there's a good chance that you and the empirical evidence are going in opposite directions." (H. Allen Orr Responds, Boston Review, February/March 1997). --Ian Pitchford 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole section on Johnson seems a bit biased. Calling his work in Darwin on Trial a religious viewpoint is wishful thinking at best. The analysis certainly comes from outside the normal scientific community, and so is certainly non-scientific. But if I were characterising it I'd call it philosophical and legalistic, not religious (Note: He is pretty weak on the individual evidence, but extremely perceptive when it comes to understanding the modes of thought of various parties). I think the fact the man taught law had far more effect on his viewpoint than whether he regularly attended church. Call Darwin on Trial legalistic. Claim it is wrong, call it non-scientific or even unscientific. But by all means, please don't insult everyone involved in science, non-science, or pseudo-science by dismissing Darwin on Trial as "a religious viewpoint".

Correction. Johnson's efforts are religiously motivated and corrupted with a religious bias. So I think the wording is perfectly appropriate. He is an extremist and a nut.--Filll 19:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hunter's quote

Does the quote from the biology book about the 5 different races have any bearing on this debate? It's an interesting sidelight to see discredited theories, but unless that was included as part of the Scopes trial it seems as irrelevant and inflammatory. It also seems to interrupt the flow of the argument.

I removed them. They were completely irrelevant. - 69.243.125.36 04:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Legal quotes

Epperson v. Arkansas:

“...the First Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma...the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.”

The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court wrote in a California case (Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 1994):

“The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones is not.”

1982 McLean v. Arkansas case, the judge wrote that creation scientists:

“ ...cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.”

The Supreme Court in 1987 (Edwards v. Aguillard):

“...Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.”

In Webster v. New Lennox School District (1990), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated:

“If a teacher in a public school uses religion and teaches religious beliefs or espouses theories clearly based on religious underpinnings, the principles of the separation of church and state are violated as clearly as if a statute ordered the teacher to teach religious theories such as the statutes in Edwards did.”

From evolution.berkeley.edu WAS 4.250 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

FSM Link

Could somebody please explain to me why the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" link is on this page?

Should I put "Atheism" at the bottom of the evolution page?

I am removing this absolutely pointless inclusion. Wikipedia is a NPOV site, not a place for religion-bashing. --Jakes18 06:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a satire of creationism (not religion), which, unless I'm mistaken, is what this page is actually about. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a deliberate response to the disingenuous attempt by creationists to infiltrate their particular reading of religious works into the public school system. Note that this is quite unlike atheism which has, more or less, nothing to do with evolution - beyond the fact that atheists generally subscribe to it, along with the pope and many, many other religious people who don't subscribe to biblical literalism. Anyway, as such, it's a perfectly sensible link for this page, and I'm going to reinstate it. Does that explain it now? --Plumbago 08:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly relevent, being created as a parody of creationism to protest attempts to have it adopted in science classrooms, and it's notable, being an internet phenomenon which has even been reported on by major news corporations. Jefffire 11:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire and Plumbago basicly covered it, but I'd just like to informally throw my support behind their position. I agree that it is relevent and should be included. --Falcorian ^(talk) 16:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Should I include satires of evolution (if there any) linked to pages relating to evolution?

This is not a pro-evolution site. Nor is it an anti-evolution site. Get it right. I'm reverting. --Jakes18 21:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FSM was created in direct response to the debate about creation and evolution in public education. As such, it deserves a mention here. -- Ec5618 21:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a notable satire about evolution, well, I can't see why not. But the crucial point is that it must be notable. The FSM is widely known and, as Jefffire points out, has become something of a media phenomenon (see here, here or here for instance). It is a deliberate response to the pernicious efforts of creationists to pollute the education system with a particular brand of religion (which, as I said before, is widely rejected by religious organisations and authorities such as the pope). As such this article is a perfectly suitable location for a "see also" mention (pretty much the least significant form of mention that can be made in an article). Anyway, you'll note that consensus is very much against you here. Unless you can provide better arguments than hitherto, please do not revert again. Cheers, --Plumbago 07:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Kansas Board of Education decision

In the first paragraph under Recent developments in state education programs, the quotation about the Kansas Board doesn't link to the correct place (at least, the linked site doesn't contain that quote). If anyone knows where this quote is from, please repair the link. Also, it's not very clear what the Board's decision was: did they decide schools had to teach Creationism and may teach evolution? Or that schools had to teach both theories? Or that schools could choose which way to teach? Please answer, and write it in the article. Tamuz ^(Talk) 13:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Links revised, hope it's clearer now that local school districts in Kansas choose whether or not to teach either or both: State standards appear to be advisory rather than mandatory. ...dave souza, talk 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I made a small addition clarifying that they chose whether or not to teach Creationism, too. Tamuz ^(Talk) 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

U.S.-centric

This article seems by its nature to be very Americentric, and could perhaps be renamed to reflect this fact ("... in the United States"). The first sentence, "The legal status of creation and evolution in public education is the subject of a great deal of debate in legal, political and religious circles, mainly in the United States" is clearly wrong, since of course the discussion and debate rages in lots of other countries as well. (I realize the UK is mentioned as well but certainly not at a representative level.) Spebudmak 05:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The "debate" about creationism in UK schools is far less pronounced than that in the US. While politicians occasionally (but very, very rarely) dabble in the subject, it's not a patch on the attention that the topic receives in the US. Hence the apparent bias. There's also the issue of creationism in countries outside the US being fed by US activists. Anyway, if you feel that article is missing some "raging" debate in other countries please add it. I can only speak for the UK, but it's certainly doesn't appear to be raging here (surprisingly, given the insidious efforts of individuals like Peter Vardy). Cheers, --Plumbago 09:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If the subject receives national coverage in the U.K., then indeed the article should be updated/tweaked to reflect that. Otherwise the article is Americentric because that reflects the relative notability of attempts at creation in public schools. But now that you mention it, Africa, the Middle-East and perhaps some parts of Asia are likely not sufficiently covered. So I'd say the article isn't wrong, just incomplete. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Europe for a number of years, and I do not recall ever reading one article in any European based magazine or newspaper discussing Evolution. If you Google Evolution and Education, you'll get an incredible number of hits in the US. Short of Muslim dominated countries, most democratic countries are secular, and they would never even consider discussing a religious myth with their students. Of course, the US, dominated by Christian nutjobs, attempts to force the teaching of their particularly obnoxious mythology onto our students. So yes, this article probably is going to be US-centric, and that's just sad.OrangeMarlin 17:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And what about those Muslim dominated countries? Do they not have public education as well? What about say Turkey or Saudi Arabia? Why are they not mentioned in the article? Unless the article discusses the topic in a global sense, it should be renamed 'Creation, evolution and public education in the United States _{and the UK}'.

I've located an article about the subject in Turkey in the journal Science, and an editor from Saudi Arabia informs me that evolution is not taught there at all. There's an article on Saudi Arabian education here: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+sa0048), though it doesn't mention evolution specifically. We need to find more material on this. I'm guessing it would be mainly the Islamic countries where this wouldn't be taught, and possibly some where Christianity is very prevalent. I know little about Islamic culture or human geography, so the work of others is needed here. Richard001 06:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Natural Selection is not Evolution

That is to say, Natural Selection is the prevailing explanation of the mechanism of evolution, not Evolution itself. Various other explanations of evolution are possible, such as the discarded theories of Cuvier, Lamarck and Kammerer. Remember that Darwin's theories themselves needed a great deal of reworking in light of the biological discoveries of the past century, hence Neo-Darwinism. A lot of people seem to find it convenient to say "you either kowtow to the claims of the experts, or you are a Bible thumping creationist", which is a false dichotomy. Isn't this simply McCarthyism? It shouldn't be necessary to resort to ad hominem arguments to advance the cause of science.

Experts are not always right; in fact if you look at the history of science you will find they are frequently wrong. I seem to recall that not so long ago it was common for doctors to vehemently deny that there was any evidence for the health benefits of vitamins except to prevent deficiency diseases. Or look at the current state of physics: you will see some theories that give precise experimental results and have great predictive value, and others that can't be tested at all and have no predictive value whatsoever, like string theory, yet it is all the rage.

Fred Hoyle, a thorough-going atheist, was also quite critical of the current state of Evolutionary science: he accepted Evolution but he thought our understanding of it's mechanisms to be much weaker than it's advocates admitted.

The fact that this article doesn't discuss or even admit the distinction between Natural Selection and Evolution; or between legitimate Intelligent Design theories which accept Evolution, and Creationism - which doesn't - simply shows the bias of it's authors. Cspalletta 00:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a religious database. Therefore, scientific theories shall take priority over religious pseudo-sciences/proto-sciences. --User:DeadGuy comment actually added by 24.22.212.250

Actually, Wikipedia does not have a scientific point of view but a neutral point of view. That also doesn't respond to Cspalletta's various claims. To respond- regarding the matter of natural selection - actually according to the modern synthesis natural selection is one of a variety of different forces which cause evolution (others for example include sexual selection and neutral drift). Second regarding your comment that "A lot of people seem to find it convenient to say "you either kowtow to the claims of the experts, or you are a Bible thumping creationist", which is a false dichotomy. Isn't this simply McCarthyism? It shouldn't be necessary to resort to ad hominem arguments to advance the cause of science." I think the article does make clear that not everyone is falls into the category of accepts evolution or YEC. It isn't clear to me what you see as ad hominem attacks or "McCarthyism." Third, regarding the fact that experts are not always right- true but irrelevant since a) evolution is one of the most well-tested ideas in science and b) Wikipedia cares about verifiabiity not truth- if there ever becomes a significant portion o f the scientific community which disagrees with evolution we will note it- until then it is irrelevant. Fourth, regarding your claim about Hoyle- Hoyle a) is a single man and b) was not a biologist and well outside his area of expertise c) Hoyle's objections to evolution had almost nothing to do with the standard creationist/ID objections. Regarding your claim that "this article doesn't discuss or even admit the distinction between Natural Selection and Evolution" - that may be a good point although I'm not sure how relevant it is to the article and would be interested to see what you propose to change that. Regarding a lack of distinction between "legitimate Intelligent Design theories which accept Evolution, and Creationism" - what do you mean to say that ID accepts evolution? This would be news to Paul Nelson one of the fellows of the Discovery Institute and a Young Earth Creationist. And it would be news to William Dembski another major propoent of intelligent design who has a blog titled Uncommon Descent. And it would be news to the writers of Of Pandas and People who took an earlier draft that mentioned creationism everywhere and replaced it with "intelligent design" right after the US Supreme Court said in Edwards v. Aguilard that you couldn't teach creation science in public schools. Indeed, the only major ID-proponent who accepts common descent is Michael Behe. ID is simply creationism repackaged - see Kitzmiller v. Dover and it has no scientific content. JoshuaZ 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also most of this material in any event would make more sense on the main Creation-evolution controversy page even if it had any validity. JoshuaZ 03:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Who's winning?

I deleted this post to save precious space, originally was posted to find out who, as of 2006, was winning the creation-evolution in public schools problem. Answer was evolution. Savvy?--DeadGuy 04:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cobb County

Finally, the religious mythologists in the Cobb County Board of Education decided to abandon their quixotic quest to force the creation myth on students. The students of Cobb County will now have the opportunity to learn facts in science so that they may be actually be smarter, more productive students. OrangeMarlin 17:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion page, if you have a question ask it but you are now simply just rubbing this victory in the faces of those with an alternative theory (no matter how stupid), which shows how immature you are.--DeadGuy 05:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit his phrasing was a bit strong, but mine is often overly strong as well. I think that those supporters of rationality and reason and science have been silent far too long in the face of those who are so driven by hatred of those who are different or believe different things, and want to drag society back to the Dark Ages. To the point where a vast majority of the American public now believe in creatism and discount evolution. Orangemarlin was mentioning something very relevant to the article. What is wrong with that? Orangemarlin is not denying the right of any religious fundamentalist to believe any "stupid" alternative theory (your words, paraphrased slightly). The comment about immaturity is an ad hominem attack. You are the pot calling the kettle black, it seems to me. I think it is not much of a victory considering the opinion polls. We have a long long ways to go, unfortunately. This is maybe just one tiny step in the process.--Filll 18:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If I look at the top of my Wikipedia page it says, "Discussion." These people need to be stopped everywhere, and it is not immaturity on my part, it is the knowledge that they take away free thought and liberty one tiny little step at a time. We must celebrate the tiny little victories that stop them. That's all. I fear for what these people will do in this country, and making sure that the Science and Facts of Evolution are taught to our children. That's all. We're on the same side, I just don't tolerate them as much as you do. I suffer fools poorly.OrangeMarlin 16:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I fear that they will drag us into a religious war. Many seem to be itching for a religious war and bloodshed. I fear they will impose an Inquisition on US society. If one takes them at their word, that is what they intend. I fear they will create a Taliban-type regime in the US. SO the threat is so great and so serious that one better speak out, while we are still able. Period.--Filll 18:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that it is not a discussion page dealing with the validity of either side, but what pertains to the improvement of the article. I agree with you, but a) you don't need to rub it in and b) wikipedia is not the place to voice your opinion.--DeadGuy 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit difficult not to let your opinion slip into the discussion, although it should not color the articles too much if possible. I do not believe he is "rubbing it in". What did he say wrong? Quixotic? I believe that is accurate. Mythologists? Maybe a bit harsh but a certain truth in that. I see nothing else objectionable or incorrect or overly strident in his statement.--Filll 18:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, fine. Fair enough. Sorry for snapping. As I said, I agree totally with the facts behind the statement even though I disapproved of the bluntless used in expressing it.--DeadGuy 19:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

These people make me cranky. You know I went to the Evolution article about 2 weeks ago, because I need some information about Theory vs. Fact for a school administrator that wanted to force my kids to learn that Evolution was ONLY a theory. I ended up reading articles, discussions, archived discussions, I went to the various creationist articles, ID, something called the Orchard theory (that thankfully was deleted). I ended up in these discussions, because I am so frustrated by what the Christian/Taliban fundamentalists try to force on to people. I have concluded that there are scary people out there. Thankfully, I live in Santa Barbara, CA where progressive thought is not suppressed by Christian/Taliban fundamentalists. And yeah, they're into a myth that has no proof historically, scientifically, or intellectually.OrangeMarlin 01:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, I am sorry. I didn't mean to snap. You were right and I was wrong. My apologies.--DeadGuy 23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How does one teach creationism in a classroom using the scientific method? Why doesn't any creationist uderstand that evolution works by the best of the best surviving thus isolating the positive traits.

An explanation for humans' intelligence is the fact he was relitively weak and only the intelligent members of the primitive humans were able to survive. Creatures too weak to withstand their environment must be intelligent enough to survive,along with being able to communicate well, explaning mankind's speech adaptaition. The primitive humans who couldn't communicate so well with the tribe didn't have many surviving members. Mankind's relative lack of physical strength was made up for his intelligence which developed over many generations because it was the only way to survive.

Sorry about being so redundant in the above paragraph but I am in a rush. Teaching creation in a classroom seems much too simple, simply saying an intelligent designer (some kind of god or a god named God) should NOT EVER BE ALLOWED in a classroom,because there is nothing supporting it as it is just bible-based and not based on obsevation,and scientific knowlege. Evolution IS NOT FAITH BASED,if you truly understand how it works.

Effect of Controversy on Education

Orangemarlin has advised me to comment on the POV nature of this section here rather than deleting it, so that's what I'm doing. One point is that it's written from an anti-creationist and US-centric perspective, espeically in the phrase "our students". The capitalization of the phrase "the Science of Evolution" is both incorrect and over-reverent to what is just a theory. The characterization of Intelligent Design as a "religious myth" is incorrect; issues such as the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Jesus may be "religious myths", but an alternative hypotheisi to explain life's diversity with no connection to any particular religion isn't. The references to "technological leadership", NASA, Global Warming, and medical research may be valid in terms of the effect of the controversy on science and politics, but not in terms of the effect of the controversy on _education_. 81.140.77.34 23:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you not log in with a reasonable account instead of an IP address? And if you want to discuss things reasonably, then fine. Why do you not look at the article Evolution as theory and fact before you make more statements about evolution is a "theory". When you make comments like this, you sound like you do not know what science is, and you do not know what a theory is. These sorts of comments about evolution being "just a theory" are very ignorant. Learn a bit about the subject you are supposedly discussing. And "The Science of Evolution" might be bad grammar, but evolution is certainly a part of science. Under what basis is it not part of science? Intelligent design has been determined repeatedly in courtroom settings after millions of dollars worth of testimony and evidence to be just a disguise for religious myth. In fact, the supporters of Intelligent design under oath were forced to concede that there was little difference between intelligent design and astrology, and if their changes in the rules were agreed to, astrology could be and should be taught in schools instead of astronomy or alongside it. You think that these judges, many of whom were republican appointees are some sort of evil liberals? I would also ask, where do you think technological leadership comes from, but form education? You want another Dark Ages when faith ruled all of life/ You are welcome to it. Let's start by taking away your car and cell phone and health care and medicines and television and computer and plastic possessions etc. Live in a cave for a few years and then we will talk.--Filll 15:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you misuse the word "theory." Do as Filll has suggested, and read up on theory vs. fact. Evolution is a fact. Global warming and medical research rely upon a foundation of understanding the age of the earth, evolution of organisms, and similar scientific fact. Technological leadership in those two areas require that knowledge. We have a bunch of Republicans in the USA who deny that global warming exists, one of whom has stated because there is no evidence of ice ages, because they existed before some god created the earth. And the virgin birth and resurrection ARE myths, but that's not the point of this article, and we're not discussing it here. If I cared, and I don't, I would go to those articles and show that they are myths. Creationism is a myth. You do make one valid point (and that's something I might need to address) is that it is US-centric. Well, in most First World countries, religion is not allowed within the educational system, so they don't teach creationist mythology. In Muslim countries, they force students to study religion (note once again the similarity between fundamentalist Muslims and Christians), and they foist upon their children creationist garbage. So, sadly, it really is a US-centric problem. If you Christians just would read the constitution, you'd know that you can't teach religious mythology in public schools.OrangeMarlin 16:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is not taught in Pakistan and many other Muslim countries. There are Hindu fundamentalists that oppose evolution, Jewish fundamenatlists that oppose evolution, Christian fundamentalists that oppose evolution and Muslim fundamentalists oppose evolution. Probably others as well; those are just the ones that I have found websites for. The reason that the article is US-centric, aside from the number of US users on Wikipedia, is that this is a HUGE battle driven by immense amounts of money in the US that has raged off and on for decades. I suspect that the amount of money spent in the rest of the world on this issue does not come close to approach the money spent in the US on this. I see the US creationist attack on evolution as just one aspect of a wide range of extreme Christian fundamentalist beliefs espoused by various groups:

• destroying the earth and the environment is ordered by God to force Jesus to come back sooner
• trying to create a worldwide nuclear exchange fulfills God's prophecy of the end times and will prompt the creation of a paradise on earth
• Catholics are evil satanists and are not Christians
• Homosexuals should be put to death
• Infidels, nonbelievers, pagans and blasphemers like Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Mormons, Methodists, Hindus, Buddhists etc should be put to death if they refuse to convert
• The earth is only 6000 years old and anyone who claims otherwise is stupid and insane and one of Satan's minions
• Scientists are really doing the work of the Devil and are going straight to hell
• Ranting and raving and screaming and frothing at the mouth while rolling around in the dirt is a sign of true faith in God and a sign of how the Spirit of God is working in people of faith and how truely blessed they are.
• People screaming and raving and full of hatred for those who are different or believe something else, and even calling for the execution of those who disagree are speaking personally for God and it is blasphemy to even question them.
• People who claim that the bible (particularly their faith's version, of the many versions) is inerrant in spite of literally thousands of well known inconsistencies and errors and translation problems
• People who stand on their heads to pull very strange interpretations out of bible passages, claiming some are important and ignoring others
• People who know nothing of the history of their own faith
• People who claim Christian fundamentalists are persecuted terribly in the US because they are forbidden by law from acting in more antisocial ways than they already do.

I could go on and on. But try to step out of your particular mindset for a second, and imagine what an outsider thinks when they hear such things, see such things, etc. It is VERY hard to view Christian fundamentalists in a positive light, do you not agree? If you are at all honest or at least somewhat rational and reasonable, you will see that Christian fundamentalists create a very bad image. And your views that you espouse here are just more of the same. It is hard to take you seriously. Sorry.--Filll 16:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think anything I say here is going to be well recieved, but I still want to reply. I dont have an account because I'm on my brother-in-laws machine, who uses the name "Tevildo" and who thought I might find Wikipedia interesting - youll be pleased to know that I wont be returning to it, though, if your comments are typical of the people who run it. If nothing else, it strengthens my view that defenders of evolutionism are really motivated by a desire to attack Christianity and promote materialism and secularism, not a love of "science". I'll make some specific points, then leave.

1. The title of the section, if its going to stay as it is, should be something like "Effects of teaching alternatives to evolution on American society". Only one of the points mentioned is relevant to education, the financial effect on school boards. 2. "Myth" is a very inflammatory word. I know the courts have ruled that intelligent design is religious, but "religious ideas" or "religious concepts" are more neutral terms. 3. "the principle that phenomena can be explained only by natural, reproducible, testable forces" (emphasis added) is materialism, not science. 4. The argument that teaching evolution leads to the moral decline of society should be included here, if Wikipedia truly sought a neutral point of view. 81.140.77.34 21:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• First, each of the points has a lot to do with the forcing of creationist teaching on students.

• Second, religions are myths. Most scientists do not believe in a "god", because they understand the underlying natural forces. But since those same scientist have to keep their jobs, even in secular universities or companies, they're not like me. When a patient of mine or any doctor miraculously survives something, I know it's not a miracle. It's just that I haven't figured out the reason. And when I do, it makes me a better doctor.
• Third, the principle you describe is not materialism, it is, in fact, the definition of science. I'm not sure what materialism is, but buying Louis Vuitton purses is, and that has nothing to do with natural, reproducible, and testable forces.
• Fourth, teaching of Evolution leads to a more intelligent, wiser and technologically superior student, not one who believes in myths. And as Filll writes, morality seems to be stronger with those children who have open minds and have learned about alternative viewpoints. My kids know about you Christians--and they know of the Holocaust. OrangeMarlin 22:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There are people of all viewpoints on Wikipedia. There are obviously many others who have different views. There is published evidence that belief in creationism is strongly correlated with social ills such as teenage pregnancy, drug usage, abortions, divorce, crime, etc. I do not know if this is directly education related or not, but it is true. So the evidence is not that evolution has lead to the moral decline of society, but in fact the opposite. Creationist beliefs are directly correlated with horrible social ills. I agree that myth is inflammatory and might eventually be replaced. Science is defined to explain the natural world with natural causes. Supernatural events and supernatural causes are not part of science. "Materialism" is a term invented by creationists to throw mud, or used in abstruse philosophy of science arguments. You will make no headway trying to convince scientists to admit the supernatural into science. Instead, you will destroy it, and end up including things like astrology in astronomy and alchemy in chemistry. --Filll 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to 81.140.77.34's bluster, I have now put a reference and a paper in with evidence that creationism might have terrible negative consequences for society. The evidence suggests that creationist beliefs are basically a social and moral evil.--Filll 22:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

When you get some hard evidence for intelligent design that presents it as a valid and legimate alternative to evolution, you give me a call and I'll hook you up for the nobel peace prize because you would be the first creationist to do so.--DeadGuy 05:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And I would head to the nearest Synagogue and tell the Rabbi that I was badly mistaken. I'm pretty sure I don't have to do that.OrangeMarlin 16:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for inflicting the b-i-l's views on this article. :) However, while I (naturally) disagree with him on the primary issue, I still think he has a valid point about materialism. Could I suggest that the first sentence of the offending paragraph might usefully be re-written along the lines of "The teaching of religious doctrines, such as Creation Science and Intelligent Design, as scientific explanations for aspects of the natural world, relies upon an understanding of and belief in the supernatural, which is direct opposition to the principle that science can only use natural, reproducible, testable forces to explain phenomena."? I also feel - and this may be getting into irrelevant territory - that it's unwise to push the view that Science == Atheism. To take one of Filll's bullet-points, this only reinforces the fundamentalist view that "scientists are really doing the work of the Devil". Tevildo 00:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

At first glance it is not too bad a sentence, but it is awfully long. I am not aware of anyone pushing the view that science=atheism. I do not think Orangemarlin is an atheist. I am not an atheist. Most scientists are probably agnostics. Newton was a unitarian. Einstein was closer to a deist. So was Darwin. And Pascal too. --Filll 00:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "The teaching of religious doctrines, such as Creation Science and Intelligent Design, relies upon an understanding of and belief in the supernatural. This is in direct opposition to the principle that science can only use natural, reproducible, testable forces to explain phenomena."? And some might interpret "Most scientists do not believe in a "god", because they understand the underlying natural forces" as expressing the viewpoint I alluded to; however, this is just the talk page, and I'm sure we're all capable of keeping our personal views of religion out of the article itself. :) Tevildo 00:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes I see that "most scientists do not believe in a god quote". Well there are a lot of agnostic scientists, but in context I would interpret that statement to mean "Most scientists do not believe in a god to explain what they observe around them". Now it is hard to prove there is no god and I suspect most scientists are undecided since there is so little evidence for a god. Being an atheist is a much more difficult position to maintain than being an agnostic. Also, the pair of sentence is better I think.--Filll 00:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I think most scientists are atheists, as are most physicians. I just think when you see the natural world as a complex set of rules and laws, and that the things that we don't understand are usually attributed to a myth rather than our ability to understand them, then you no long believe in the supernatural. I don't believe in ghosts, souls, UFO's, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, honest Republicans, Christian myth, the Kings winning the Stanley Cup, vegetarianism, animals having feelings, and German people who deny knowledge of the Holocaust. How's that for controversy!OrangeMarlin 00:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate changes made. Are we in a position to remove the tag now? Tevildo 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I'd agree. OrangeMarlin 01:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I removed it.--Filll 01:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I have been absent for a long time from wikipedia, and sadly see that NPOV is still a pipe dream. Certain editors stake out their POV in an article, declare it to be the NPOV position and defend it against all disagreement. I have this seen over and over, on almost any topic that could be considered even slightly controversial. Anyone who disagrees is attacked without restraint. I have read the above text by Filll and OrangeMarlin and can see that the same kind of nonsense is still occurring. You two are ranting, pure and simple. There is a list of "Christian fundamentalist beliefs" which is plain ridiculous (and a complete misrepresentation), and which has "I could go on and on" at the end instead of as an introduction. There is a claim that "materialism=consumerism" is the only meaning of the word; another misrepresentation. There is a whole load of unsubstantiated claims both pro-evolutionism and con-Christianity; most of which could easily have been referenced (and refuted), but ultimately was delivered like a regurgitation of so much bile. I hope you feel better for it. Either the article or the "Effects of Controversy on Education" section of was tagged as POV (sorry, I'm not digging through the history to check which), and here was the result; a complete broadside from Filll and OrangeMarlin against detractors real and imagined, followed up by the same two editors deciding to remove the POV tag. If this article is like the ones I recall from earlier, the more balanced editors will struggle on for a while, and eventuially move on to easier articles (or move out), leaving wikipedia with yet another obviously POV article. That is, unless this has already happened. I don't single this article out for these comments, as I have seen this problem in several others already ("An Inconvenient Truth" for one). The last time I was here I went from article to article and everytime I came across one that I thought I could contribute to, I checked the talk page. In almost every single case, the talk page was enough to convince me to just skip the article and look for another. After a while I stopped looking. Okay, now my text is starting to look like a rant, too! Such is wikipedia. LowKey 04:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To add another $0.02 I just checked the user pages of both Filll and OrangeMarlin. Above, both criticised the use of 'materialism' in reference to a world view. Both also include the results of a world view quiz complete with their "Materialism" score, on their user pages. Being a little disengenuous, perhaps? LowKey 04:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Merely a theory" err...

The text of the article at one point says: "Over the past few years, there have been several attempts to set aside the teaching of evolution in public schools in favor of promoting Evolution as merely a theory".

I'm not sure this quite makes sense - evolution is a theory. The problem with the ID movement is that they try to conflate the scientific principle of a "theory" with the general use of the term (which is closer to the scientific term 'hypothesis' - needless to say, ID doesn't even count as a hypothesis, but that's beside the point).

Can anyone suggest a better phrasing of the offending passage? Or am I missing something here? Tomandlu 13:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is a fact. I think that the sentence is fine, but a wikilink might help.Orangemarlin 23:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Orangemarlin, I've only just noticed your comment - no, my problem with the above sentence is that "merely a theory" seems to denigrate the status of a scientific theory (i.e. conflate it with the day-to-day use of the word). The facts of evolution are not the same as the theory of evolution, and we should be careful to make the distinction. Anyway, I did modify the sentence to, I hope, make it more accurate. Tomandlu 09:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the intent was something like ...set aside the teaching of evolution in public schools as, according to its opponents, it is "merely a theory". (which should ideally be followed with an explanation of why this is inaccurate. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Anyway, I think the current edit covers that Tomandlu 14:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Selman v. Cobb County School District

Help. The article, which of course would be referenced from this article, needs some major cleanup. I've done a lot of rewriting (and it really had a lot of good information as a foundation), but it needs more. Orangemarlin 23:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What about this case?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/CA/393_university_of_california_syste_9_8_2005.asp Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw something else in these pages about how this is just still grinding along. Ugh.--Filll 03:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an insignificant lawsuit from a bunch of creationists, who expect that their nonscientific education qualifies them for one of the top universities in the country. If they want to take their substandard education to a Christian university, that's fine with me. They expect that they can be home-schooled, learn the science of the 1st century, spout pseudoscience, and get a great education that should be reserved for those who can actually contribute to the science of the world. That's an unreasonable expectation. I guess if they want to go to UC Berkeley and learn comparative religions, I'm all right with that. Orangemarlin 05:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sightings

I went through a number of related WP entries and compiled a list of how these either link to this article or make statements that could potentially be linked:

Creation science

• creation science in the science curriculum of U.S. public schools
• public schools teach creation science
• creation science taught in United States public schools
• securing a place in public school science curriculum
• advocated in public school classrooms.
• principal focus of Creation Science advocates is on the government-supported public school systems

Evolution

• public education

Young Earth creationism

• creation science in public schools.

Separation of church and state in the United States

• Creationism and evolution equal time in the classroom
• See also, Creation and evolution in public education

Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

• evolution in public school science classes

Answers in Genesis

• teaching of creationism in public schools
• how evolution is taught in the public schools

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

• creation and evolution in public education

Kenneth R. Miller

• Creation and evolution in public education

Social effect of evolutionary theory

• creation and evolution in public education
• evolution in public school science classrooms

Creation-evolution controversy

• teaching of creation and evolution in public education
• teaching of evolution in public schools

History of creationism

• teaching of evolution and creation in public education
• views on origins could be taught in public schools
• teaching of Intelligent Design in public school science classrooms

Intelligent design movement

• battle to bring intelligent design and its social and political agenda the high school science classroom
• debates over public school textbook disclaimers
• promote intelligent design in public schools
• teaching of intelligent design as science in public schools

Teach the Controversy

• education policy for US public schools that introduces creationist explanations
• intelligent design in public school classrooms
• teaching of evolution in public school classrooms
• remove evolutionary theory from the public school science classroom
• reationists to force religious views into public school science classes
• reintroduction of intelligent design into public school
• evolution in public school science classes

Judaism and evolution

• insert religion into public schools
• evolution in the curriculum of our public schools

Kansas evolution hearings

• origin of life would be taught in the state's public high school science classes
• creation and evolution in public education
• education policy for US public schools that introduces intelligent design

Flying Spaghetti Monster

• intelligent design theory in public education

Aly & AJ

• "Are they teaching that in schools now?"

Intelligent design in politics

• evolutionary theory from the public school classroom
• evolution in its school science standards
• teaching of creation science and evolution science on an equal basis in the public schools

Criticism of atheism

• Creation-evolution controversy in public education

-- Terjen 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth in Science?

In the UK section, the group "Truth in Science" is mentioned as distributing teaching packs that the government discourages, but there is no mention of what is group and teaching packs are about. It is implied that the teaching packs are Creationist material, but this is never made explicit. When I first read the paragraph, I felt that "Truth in Science" was equally likely to be a Creationist group as it would a science in public education group. Clarification would probably improve the article.

Commonlisp 13:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Public education

Should we have a separate article about creation and evolution in education in general? What about for instance people that home school their kids to keep them from studying evolution? Or how evolution is dealt with in various private religious schools? Or should this article be broadened a little in scope and renamed? Or is the non-public side of things too trivial for a separate article, and the above link could just be redirected here? Richard001 09:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"The dangers of creationism in education"

At the end of the sub-section Movements to teach creationism in schools there is a refernce to the Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education"'s report The dangers of creationism in education. This sub-section, however, is in the United States section.

The same report is referenced at the start of the Europe section. I suggest that the first reference be merged into the second.

--FreezBee (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I have made a new subsection "Council of Europe's resolution 1580" under the "Europe" section, and I have removed the following text:

According to the resolution, "Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes."

Since the quoted passage does not occur in the October 4 version of the resolution, I have concluded that it is obsolete.

--FreezBee (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Chris Comer - Caught in the crossfire.

The ousting of the Texas Director of Science Curriculum over evolution/ID neutrality deserves a mention, I think. <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/30resign.html?ref=us>

Trishm 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Done --AlexCatlin (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

New journal to target education in evolution

New journal to target education in evolution -- ArsTechnica. The journal is entitled Evolution: Education and Outreach. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)