Talk:Evolution controversy

Style

A few too many colloquialisms ("throwing a monkey wrench into the works" et.al.) Needs to be cleaned up a bit. Al 15:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ed. I know you mean well, but this article is a mess... unfocused, original research, and POV abound.

It also duplicates Creation evolution controversy. I'm nominating that the two be merged and this deleted or redirected. FeloniousMonk 17:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. If I saw an article by this name I would assume it would document the "controversies" in evolution that the DI'ers want taught in schools. Hmm...maybe it does (i.e., it's content-free). Guettarda 17:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No redirect

It's premature to redirect this fresh start to Creation evolution controversy (which itself has so many errors and so much bias that I had to slap a totall disputed label on it).

FM, in what way is this version unfocused? It focuses from the very start on defining whath the controversy is.

How is it original research? I am reporting only on the views of others - not my own. I even cite statistics from the evolution poll article. I trust that no one has deleted that. If they have, I'll have to reproduce it.

You have not listed a single unattributed POV in the article. According to Wikipedia:POV, various points of view are supposed to be in articles about controversies. If you mean that I've introduced bias somewhere, please give an example so I can fix it.

Ed, you of all people should know that if you think an article is POV, the best way isn't to write a duplicate it's to improve the other one. You should also explain why you think creation-evolution controversy is POV. Dunc|☺ 18:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I know exactly what I'm doing. But I do not understand your remarks or actions. Could you define the term POV as you're using it? I only understand POV as a noun: meaning a "point of view". Wikipedia policy recommends giving each point of view in a controversy a fair hearing, or at least that each POV be described fairly. Am I violating this policy? Uncle Ed 18:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You aren't violating NPOV per se, but you are violating the policy of original research and POV-pushing by writing this new article. Joshuaschroeder 18:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like begging the question to me. I asked above, "How is it original research?"

It is original research because, as you will see from the articles about the subject listed below, you are illustrating a unique amalgmation of your own creation. Joshuaschroeder 19:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

And exactly what POV do you say I'm pushing? Uncle Ed 18:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Moonie party line, apparently. Joshuaschroeder 19:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Merge" hasn't happened

No ideas from this article have been copied into Creation evolution controversy. If this article duplicates ideas in the other article, please point them out. Until then, I'm going to revert the redirect. Uncle Ed 17:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No ideas from this article are needed in the creation-evolution controversy article. Simply reporting your own take on the controversy is not enough. The issues you cite are found in the following articles: creationism, creation science, intelligent design, flood geology, creation biology, creationist cosmologies, history of creationism, as well as the controversy article. If you have any information in this article that isn't covered in those articles, source it there, but there shouldn't be more than one article in Wikipedia on the same subject. Joshuaschroeder 18:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a laugh. You just cited 7 different articles on the same subject! Uncle Ed 00:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is wrong on so many levels. An article already exists that's devoted to this topic; there's no need to "start fresh." Go "repair" that one.

If you can't muster consensus for your additions at the existing article, then creating a new article is not the right response. To argue otherwise means that you concede that in other words "this article is an attempt to start fresh on the evolution vs. creation controversy. The old article just isn't up to snuff and seems beyond repair." = "my additions are rejected for various reasons and it's easier to start my own article where I don't have to make a case for them."

That's called original research and restructuring the playing field. Consensus here is that it is this article that isn't up to snuff and beyond repair. FeloniousMonk 19:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

For the third time, how is this original research? If the information already exists in 7 other Wikipedia articles, then it's not original. Uncle Ed 00:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR rule

I have made exactly three reverts in a 24 hour period, and now I must call it quits for the day. See you tomorrow!

All kidding aside, this article is an attempt to start fresh on the evolution vs. creation controversy. The old article just isn't up to snuff and seems beyond repair.

There is nothing wrong with starting over. The new one can infuse life into the old one, or the old one can have a few details copied over; anything can happen. Rival versions can co-exist for a couple of weeks, it's not going to hurt anything. Uncle Ed 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ed - wouldn't it have made more sense to attempt this is a temp subpage of the original article? Guettarda 19:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

Joshuaschroeder is right, there's nothing to merge. 90% of this article is original research and unscholarly musings and is thus unsalvageable.

I move to immediately redirect.

All in favor, respond "Support", those opposed, "Oppose". FeloniousMonk 19:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support FeloniousMonk 19:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Reject No one has explained what is original research, unscholarly, "POV" (whatever that means), etc. It sounds like a campaign to suppress a POV that you all disagree with (but I assume good faith, I hope I'm wrong about the campaign thing). Anyway, I just added 100 more words, so please restart the vote on that basis if you must vote. Uncle Ed 23:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You are POV pushing Moonie party line. That's apparent. Very similar to Jonathan Wells. Your writing does not withstand scrutiny and these articles deserve deletion. Joshuaschroeder 01:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Evolution poll

A lot this hinges on what definitions of evolution the various sides chooses. All I am saying is that Wikipedia should not side with the Creationist camp and say that only 1 out of 8 people accept evolution - nor should it side against them by saying that it's an even split.

Rather, the article should explain clearly just how many people support each position. There are three clear positions, as the poll I've cited indicates. What this means may be a matter of controversy. If so, then let us describe the "meaning of the poll" in a way that advocates on both sides of the issue will call fair.

Can we at least agree on this? Uncle Ed 00:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• You seem to be suggesting that just because the average american has never taken or understood a science that has breeched the 100 level, that wiki should embrace creationism instead.. should that also apply to the 99 something % who would probably consider an open-source-e-encyclopedia some time of voodo magic.. should we write articles about the magical gods of wiki who created an encyclopedia, and explain, that those of us who are computer literate are really just heathens who refuse to believe in the wiki diety? That some 'wacky' theory aboutb computer science must be rejected, because most people don't care to/nor have the ability to understand it?

A cite to a poll does not mean that there are three clear positions at all. Poll data should not be used in such a fashion. I am AfDing the Evolution poll site. Joshuaschroeder 01:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

On No original research, Neutral point of view, etc.

In response to objections that characterization as "original research", it is instructive to review the first sentence of the policy No original research.

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what the sources say.

Further:

This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable.

To take one part of the article as an example, I have quoted below the setion "Motivation and methodology", and interspersed comments. For each statement, consider the fact that it is not sourced (as well as whether it likely could be sourced and attibuted):

Some thinkers start with a premise and try to come up with a theory which supports this premise while being consistent with observed facts.

Not really problematic as it does not claim much—"Some thinkers" is quite vague. However, keep in mind: Avoid weasel terms.

Atheists, tending to embrace materialism, generally begin from the viewpoint that there is no God and that natural forces and laws govern all.

Statement is overly broad, given the diversity of viewpoints that may be labelled "athiest". Conflates atheism and materialism. Source?

"Science is sovereign", they say, meaning that only the material world exists and that science should concern itself only with discovering the natural laws which govern the material world.

Who said this? So far as I can tell, Pope Paul VI said, "science is sovereign in its field," but the quote is being attributed to athiests at large. Also, Pope Paul VI was not widely believed to be atheist.

Religious adherents profess believe [sic] in God (whether as genuine faith or for some pragmatic purpose), and they begin from the viewpoint that God created all matter and life.

NPOV/systematic bias problem equating religious adherence with Abrahamic monotheism and creation ex nihilo. Buddhist beliefs are probably the most distinct and widespread counterexample.

Their claim is that God intervenes from time to time in the material world. Generally, though, they accept that after a time of intervention, God allows the results to follow natural laws. For example, after creating the sun and the planets, God does not move them around Himself, but allows momentum and gravity to move them in the elliptical paths observed by astronomers.

Again, attribution of these beliefs to "religious adherents" in general appears to be too broad to support. Needs to be more specifically attributed. [Sidenote, from MoS regarding "Himself": Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, do not begin with a capital letter.]

A completely open-minded approach is rare.

Verifiable? Source? Or does it belong to opinion and personal observation?

Thinkers usually begin with a conclusion and then seek to justify it, so it is hard to find anyone who begins with the observed facts and then looks for a hypothesis which can explain these facts. The tendency is to pick a hypothesis which conforms either to atheism or religous [sic] belief and then go from there.

Verifiable? Source? Also, continuation of broad stereotypes of "athiesm" and "religious belief."

These two schools of thought (or opposing camps) sometimes express their arguments in terms of a search for a hypothesis which can be fitted to the facts, but it is not remarkable that their arguments always reach the foreordained conclusion.

Appears to be just a tautology, because the conclusion a particular thinker reaches is used to define which "school of thought" or "opposing camp" that thinker belongs to. Source?

--Tabor 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitions again

People For the American Way says:

How familiar are people with “Creationism” and “Evolution”? Are all Americans using the same definitions? [1]

I think this is important because when we say that X percent of Americans (or English-speakers, etc.) "believe in evolution" it's probably not at all clear what this means. I bet the phrasing of evolution poll questions is important, too. Uncle Ed 21:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)