Talk:Level of support for evolution

Newsweek reference

"Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987, representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists." using a June 29th, 1987 Newsweek article as reference.

Wanting to use this figure, I looked up the article. The part in question said "By one count there are some 700 scientists...". But the article does not provide any source for these numbers. I don't think "by one count" in a news magazine is reliable. It would be great if someone found the origin of these numbers. If not, I think it should be removed from this Wikipedia article. The Cake 2 (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree, something untraceable as that by some reporter cannot be called a reliable source. Certainly it wasn't an opinion poll of 480'000 scientist, contrary to the suggestion. Harald88 (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This matter was authoritatively resolved in a high-profile 2012 debate (blogged about by PZ Myers) between a popular evolutionist, AronRa, and a creationist. McDaniels, the author of the Newsweek article was contacted, the article itself now appears online (it hadn't been online through the history of the Internet, until this debate post), and the membership director of the Creation Research Society was contacted. As a result, the source of the "count of 700" has been identified. There was no "estimate," no "count," no "poll," no "survey." The count very evidently was the number of members of the young-earth CRS group. That's as incorrect as a source for determining a PERCENT (99.86% as often cited) or as an ESTIMATE or a COUNT, as it would be to claim that only two-hundredths of one percent of U.S. adults are atheists, if we calculate using one count of atheists, namely, the membership of the Skeptics Society. See all this at http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=143278#p143278. So, how then do we correct the statement in the article? Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

So why is that part still there? Adnan.Saadeddin (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Error in chart

I have added the data results from the pew report to allow the reader to decide if the chart/study results are subjective. eg only 116 muslems and 215 jehovahs wittnesses could be argued as a too small spectum of these faiths to give an accurate picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.237.174 (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In the second chart in the section on public support in the United States, the two final columns have identical headings. But the data are different. Is this an error? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like a mistake. In my defense, I did not add that table. I have been slowly rewriting the entire article, so most of what you currently see will be replaced when I get finished. I just have not been as careful in keeping track of the changes others make I guess for that reason.--Filll (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's two separate polls -- the trouble is that the table makes no attempt to distinguish between them -- first ('Creationist') & last columns are from one poll, middle two are from another. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should be distinguished in some way, especially given the wide disparity between the last to columns on what % of Republicans believe in evolution. Maybe it should be divided into two charts, or just mentioned in the texts that different polls have shown conflicting data. Or maybe the older poll should be deleted. I don't know. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Physics of Time Asymmetry

Irrelevant discussion of time asymmetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should we move the discussion here? Doug Youvan (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC) No! Unless of course you can cite WP:RSs that state that a significant number (per WP:DUE) of scientists base their support (or lack thereof) of evolution on the "Physics of Time Asymmetry". Otherwise, this discussion is completely off-topic and will be removed. HrafnTalkStalk 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I was planning to give quotes from notable scientists who believe the Boltzmann H-theorem is true, thus providing (again, quoted) a forward time period for biological evolution to have occured.Doug Youvan (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Do they base their support for evolution solely or substantially on that point? (If not, it's irrelevant.) Are they speaking on behalf of a significant proportion of scientists on this point? (If not, to mention them would violate WP:UNDUE.) This article is on the "level of support for evolution" -- not 'all things that even remotely underlie evolution' -- if it were it'd need a a section on Quantum Mechanics and who knows what else. HrafnTalkStalk 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Could you restate your last comment in the positive, so I can restrict my search to what is acceptable for this article? Doug Youvan (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Nothing relating to the "physics of time asymmetry" will ever be relevant to this artice. This article is about the degree of acceptance of evolution. It is not, and never will be, about the physics of time asymmetry. Is this sufficiently clear now? --Robert Stevens (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC) It should be blindingly obvious: examples that are "speaking on behalf of a significant proportion of scientists" where they "base their support for evolution solely or substantially on [the point that "the Boltzmann H-theorem is true, thus providing ... a forward time period for biological evolution to have occured"]". But like Robert says, this is irrelevant, so you will not be able to find sources making this leap. HrafnTalkStalk 07:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC) OK, so that doesn't work. Is there anything else I can research for you as a biophysicist / creationist? I will gladly argue either for or against Creation and Evolution. The molecular mechanism of Darwinian Evolution is something that interests me. Also, Tom Jukes was my first Ph.D. mentor at Berkeley, and I can dig up his publications that were used to combat Creationists in the California Public Schools, ca. 40 years ago. He had a monthly line into Nature. Doug Youvan (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum and Appeal to authority

I've removed this section, as it seems to be more of an unnecessary disclaimer than anything else. That is to say, the purpose of the article is to cover the levels of support for evolution from various groups. Not only is the fact that a majority view is not the same as proof so obvious it goes without saying, but I hardly see how the purpose of an encyclopedic article can shift from reporting factual information to cautioning readers as to what sort of judgements they should make based on the provided information. As I see it, if the article is to be truly objective, then it should do nothing to intentionally guide the reader's thought processes. In addition, it seemed that the Appeal to Authority bit kind of encouraged misconception regarding scientific consensus. But still, regardless, of what it encourages, the point is that it shouldn't encourage anything. So I removed the section, as I said. Calgary (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to know if the rest of the 480,000 were even asked their opinion, or if it was just assumed that they supported evolution. Maybe they supported neither evolution or creationism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, this article is a mess. It gives food for Creationists sites to make fun of Wikipedia - for no good reason at all. Instead of fake arguments there are sufficient good (scientific) arguments, there is certainly no need for pseudo-scientific statistics and one-sided comparisons! Harald88 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the topic heading of this article; specifically, changing it.

I feel the title of this article does not really reflect its contents; this article is really about the level of popular support for evolution/creationism, not really about the level of support for evolution per se. The level of support for evolution, objectively speaking, consists of hundreds of thousands of scientific publications, the contents of which are largely dealt with in several other WP articles such as evidence for evolution and other articles in the evolutionary biology series.

This article, i believe, is fundamentally about the public's perception of evolution/creationism, and should be (re-)named as such. To this end, I would propose renaming the article to "Level of popular support for evolution", which serves to disambiguate the intent of this article from evidence for evolution, and more accurately reflects the article's content and intent. Mjharrison (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree -- both in the lead and in the article body the article discusses the level of support for evolution among scientists as well as among the general public. "Popular" does not cover this aspect. The "hundreds of thousands of scientific publications" ambiguity is already covered by a dab-tag at the top. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this article is strictly considering the personal beliefs or opinions of evolution as distinct from evidence for/against, i'd contend this is still "popular support". Scientists are still a subset of the population and may hold personal convictions that stem from faith that do or do not agree with their acceptance of the extant evidence for evolution. The current article conflates belief with acceptance, which doesn't seem right to me. How about prising the current article into 2 separate articles - "level of scientific acceptance of evolution as fact" and "level of popular support of evolution"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjharrison (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if I were to accept your characterisation that these are the "personal beliefs" (as opposed to the 'professional opinions') of the scientists discussed, "personal" is not equivalent to "popular". Further, "popular" has a strong connotation of 'lowest common denominator' mass culture, which is quite antithetical to the articles' coverage of the views of scientists (whether personal or professional). I think it is the contrast of the views of the masses versus the scientifically literate that provides this article with any point -- if split into two articles, it would simply be regurgitating the polling statistics for the respective groups (and wikipedia is WP:NOT simply a repository for polling data). 17:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree wtih Mjharrison. This article really puts lots of different things together to make something new. "Support for evolution" is not even defined. Why does a scientific fact need support anyway? Northwestgnome (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with article

It's an interesting article. However It really reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article to me. BTW I fully support evolution. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this example? Motorcycle helmet laws is also a controversial issue in the USA. What if we took a survey of brain trama experts, then one of professional motorcycle racers, then one of the general public and put all three together to create an article: Level of support for motorcycle helmet laws? Northwestgnome (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to start an article on Level of support for X provided the topic is notable. That is, there would need to be a significant number of reliable sources indicating that Level of support for X is something that is widely discussed. The topic Level of support for evolution is notable. --Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the article, and I learned some things reading it. My problem with it is that it puts together various different things to create something new -- like a magazine article, say in the New Yorker, would. Not like an encyclopedia article. I see that it has been AfDed twice so I won't nominate it again. I also think "Level of support for motorcycle helmet laws" is just as notable. Among people I know this comes up as a topic of conversation more often then "Level of support for evolution."  :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Level of support among Evangelical theogians

This report finds that 46% of Evangelical theologians (i.e. those from the denomination generally considered most vocal in its opposition to evolution) "can accept the theory of theistic evolution." Would there be any problem with including this in the article? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If the methodology of the polling is sound, large enough sample, et al. then I don't see why not. I'm not surprised by the number, but I'm sure many antievolutionists would disagree with the (in their minds) high number. Auntie E. 18:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The extent of the claimed consensus

The references [1,2] do not give any indication as to the extent of the claimed consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Andrew Richards (talk • contribs) 23:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• [2], found here, reads:

  Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees.

• [1], found here, states: "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution"

Did you actually read the sources? — Scientizzle 23:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you? If so, please explain the methodology for estimating the 99.9% - and don't forget to add the 99% confidence interval. ;-) Harald88 (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"There are movements in many countries backing the claim that the theory of evolution is in conflict with creationism"

I have amended this to : "There are religious sects and denominations in several countries for whom the theory of evolution is in conflict with creationism that is central to their dogma, and who therefore reject it"

It is more accurate, as there are no "movements" that oppose evolution, the opposition is entirely from adherents of a creationist belief, and the term "many countries" is vague and possibly misleading. Further, these religious opponent of evolution do not "Back the claim" of such a conflict, they make the claim. The previous wording implies that other, non-religious sources have "made the claim" and that they then simply "back" such claims. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Contents of amicus curiae - citation needed?

Hey there! Following these two edits to the last sentence of the paragraph on the 1986 amicus curiae brief, I believe that the current wording should be changed. In the sentence, "The amicus curiae brief also clearly described why evolution was science, not religion, and why creationism is not science," the phrase "clearly described" seems to be a subjective judgement on the brief's contents. Can we change it to something like, "The amicus curiae brief also asserted that evolution was science, not religion, and that creationism is not science"? Other possible words choices: claimed that, indicated that. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"The amicus curiae brief also states evolution was science, not religion, and that creationism is not science" would be more appropriate, as this can be considered expert opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the claim of clarity comes from a secondary source describing the brief. I've reworded the text to reflect what each source explicitly states. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, that's much better! Also, as regards the question of creationist articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, I think we can do better than what we currently have. Right now we say that, "To date however, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine Pubmed." This is borderline original research (although it might fall under WP:OR#Routine calculations), and is basically unverifiable (for us to provide definitive evidence of absence, we would have to read every article in Pubmed - by just using as search engine, after all, we could be missing something). Would this talk.origins page or this book be considered reliable sources? We should also consider presenting the Creationist point of view as expressed here, although that invites a WP:UNDUE argument. What do you folks think? --Cerebellum (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm fairly sure I've seen that claim (or one very similar to it) made in a source -- but I have not got time, right at this very moment, to track it down. So I've tagged the claim & will attempt to track down a source for it later (assuming somebody hasn't beaten me to the punch). No, we should not include the DI's WP:SELFPUB, "unduly self-serving" claims (for example, at least one of the claimed 'peer reviewers' of Darwin's Black Box had never even read the book). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Project Steve synth

User:The ed17 took out the Project Steve numbers as WP:SYN and WP:OR and I believe it was the correct move, however it might be possible to find a source that actually makes a similar statement N^oformation ^Talk 09:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Add. "Reverted 3 edits: This study is outdated, has admitted problems, and is being used to advance a POV on education. Please discuss on talk."

User indef blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. Add. "Reverted 3 edits": One of the edit is not related to the given survey at all, but points out that the sentence "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory" has no sources and thus a template "citation needed" is legitimate (cf."All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." in wp:sources). The remark "No scientific issue is ever decided by such argumentum ad populum" is just explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable, but does not provide any prove of given alleged claim by creationists. My conclusion: There is no violation of any WP policy. 2. Add. "This study is outdated, has admitted problems, and is being used to advance a POV on education." contra-argument: The WP does not ban to present historical data (it provides more balanced NPOV if contradicting opinions are presented, contrary to your claim, and better historical insight) and problems are with every study depending which side interprets them (it is strange you have not specified what particular "problem" should breach any WP policy). The article on survey was published by SciDivNet, Science and Development Network, and the title of the article "Few in Brazil accept scientific view of human evolution" suggest that the site is not favouring creationism at all, thus the claim the author of article used this study "to advance a POV on education" is clearly irrational. Articles that you favour present lots of outdated data and you seem have no objections to it: just try to follow the citation by Neil Degrasse Tyson[[1]] in the Relationship between religion and science article, section "Conflict". Thus, outdated stuff seems no problem whatsoever at WP, let alone reason to remove the content. My conclusion: There is no violation of any WP policy.--Stephfo (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 1) I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted. Feel free to put that back in if you want. 2) I was not saying the author of the article was advancing a POV. I was saying you were. Our article was not discussing education levels, nor was the source's focus on education levels, yet you chose to summarize it by saying that few educated people accepted evolution. That's inappropriate. The author of the article also admits to problems within the source study, and quotes outside criticism. That isn't the quality study we should be holding up as representative, unless properly contextualized, nor does it apparently deserve that much weight. Further, it's been superseded by a better, more recent study which we're already using. If you can show that the previous study has received notable coverage, we can contextualize the study, and properly detail its conclusions in a way relevant to our article, but as it stands, there are too many problems with your addition to include it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I apologize for any inconvenience, but contrary to your claim, my CN tag was demonstrably part of stand-alone distinctive edit 448084723 with its own explanation: "There is no source of such claim by any creationist provided, but just general explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable". On the rest I will react later, Thanks for allowing for CN.--Stephfo (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Also, please learn heading levels and indenting. See how I've fixed it here? That's how it should be. Don't create new sections as subheadings of previous unrelated sections like this, or start a section already indented, etc. It makes your comments and intentions hard to parse. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Disruptive editing Placing a {{citation needed}} tag directly before an inline citation is WP:Disruptive editing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I believe you have no problem to read the reason why the tag was placed, it is discussed in the section above, if being so, I can repeat: 1. Add. "Reverted 3 edits": One of the edit ... points out that the sentence "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory" has no sources and thus a template "citation needed" is legitimate (cf."All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." in wp:sources). The remark "No scientific issue is ever decided by such argumentum ad populum" is just explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable, but does not provide any prove of given alleged claim by creationists. My conclusion: There is no violation of any WP policy [in adding the CN template]. You failed to address the basic reason for CN tag - the citation you are referring to does not prove anyhow the given claim: "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory". May you please explicitly quote what exactly you regard from "an inline citation" as evidence for given claim? General pondering over argumentum ad populum is hardly one and thus WP:Verifiability is clearly breached, because the "inline citation" does not provide any prove of given alleged claim by creationists. You failed to notice: "I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted. Feel free to put that back in if you want." in previous section. --Stephfo (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems with definitions

Polls about Americans are plagued with differences that come up due to the variable wording of questions. Possibly there are sides in the C-E conflict that want to inflate support for "their" side. I'm not interested supported any side, but in describing as accurately as possible how much support the various POVs have had.

The term "theistic evolution" is defined in our own Wikipedia article as asserting a belief in unguided evolution (I don't know why this should be an empty page):

• that biological evolution is simply a natural process within ... creation

So in one major poll around 1/3 of Americans are said to believe this. Yet I have seen other polls which attributed up to 85% of Americans believing in either of the two major schools of thought on Creationism:

• 40% believe in Young Earth Creationism - God made everything less than 10,000 years ago; and,
• 45% believe in Old Earth Creationism - God made everything, but it took around as long as modern scientists say it did, i.e., hundreds of millions of years

One distinction that often gets lost is between the two variants of creationism. Creationism's opponents tend to use the term creationism to refer only to the views of YECs. They seem to overlook the existence of OECs (almost on purpose). Yet there have been polls with suggested statements like, "God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms" (35% to 40% of Americans, 1982-2010 Gallup).

Another problem is the definition of "evolution". We used to have an Aspects of evolution article which clarified the three main parts; perhaps Definitions of evolution would serve; the former was based on material found in the NCSE website, but it was taken down and the VWP article was deleted.

If evolution means that new species have appeared in a period of over 100 million years, and if creationism means that God makes species, then:

1. Around 15% of Americans (a) believe in evolution but (b) reject creationism
2. Around 45% of Americans (a) reject evolution completely and (b) embrace creationism (YEC)
3. Around 40% of Americans (a) accept evolution, in the limited sense that (b) God guided this process (OEC)

Has anyone else found sources which agree with this? Or do all sources disagree? Please enlighten me, so we can improve the accuracy of the present article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Around 40% of Americans (a) accept evolution, in the limited sense that (b) God guided this process"

I should point out that anyone who believes that god "guides" evolution doesn't actually believe in evolution, because evolution is not guided. I rather suspect that the claim is inaccurate and that most of those people believe in Evolution but believe it was initiated by god. I find it hard to credit that only 15% of Americans actually accept evolution, which is the implication of these stats. The stats you give raise more questions than answers, so I don't think it should be included in the article.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this be "Acceptance of evolution"? What does support for evolution even mean? Wouldn't that be something like transhumanism or eugenics? Abyssal (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It might also improve the article to differentiate between macro- and micro-evolution. One can believe that micro-evolution occurs, and thereby find the concept useful in microbiology, but still reject macro-evolution, which purports to demonstrate the development of new species. My point is that "support for evolution" is to vague. The title implies a general acceptance of the evolutionary process as if that is yes or no question like the classic "are you going to stop beating your wife?". The title should be changed to reflect this differentiation: "Level of support for micro- and macro-evolution". The section should be subdivided into the two subcategories of micro and macro. Elgingreen (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It is generally understood that accepting microevolution but rejecting macroevolution is not accepting evolution, but supporting a type of creationism which allows some adaptation "within its kind". By using "support for evolution" rather than "support for macroevolution", we are simply using the common name without suggesting that macroevolution is not the same process at a different time scale. It may be possible to specify in the lead that this is about mainstream scientific evolution, which includes macroevolution... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

India

In the lead section of the article, India is mentioned as a nation with widespread belief in creationism. When i checked the cited reference, it led to a small write-up that says a British Council poll of 10,000 people in 10 countries found that creationism is strong in India among some other countries. I decided to go deep in to the survey results and i found this link ([2]) from the National Center for Science Education website. It says that when the question was posed to those who had heard of Charles Darwin and knew something about the theory of evolution 77% in India agree that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Incidentally, this is also the highest among all countries surveyed. Also the survey says that 85% of God believing Indians who know about evolution agree that life on earth evolved over time as a result of natural selection.

Given that India is a country with very poor level of education, one can easily see to it that the majority of Indians have not heard of evolution or Darwin or his theories. But, As a matter of fact Evolution have huge support among those who have heard about it. This article is about "Level of support for evolution"; and saying that those people who have never heard of evolution do not support the evolution theory is a kind of linguistic contradiction.

Therefore, i convey my opinion that India be deleted from the list.117.204.91.158 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, i have added these stats to the country subsection in the article. 117.204.91.158 (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by this. When I lived in India I discussed evolution thoroughly and only found opposition from members of ISKCON. We should balance your point with the results regarding the uneducated though. As you pointed out, the majority of Indians haven't heard of evolution and support is poor among the uneducated. Sædon^talk 20:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, one cannot support something that one has never heard about. We have enough evidence to prove that Indians who have heard about evolution overwhelmingly (77%) support it. Naming India in lead gives totally the opposite impression. What do you say about removing "India" from the lead (4th para) 117.204.89.62 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would object to removing it because the lede makes a true statement: that creationism is widespread in India. This doesn't contradict the high level of support among the educated, it just points out that a plurality of Indians believe in creationism. Being that you added a section clarifying the Indian demographic, a reader should walk away from the article understanding both points. Sædon^talk 21:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well then, i am adding a [Note] explaining it.117.204.84.245 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

reason for development in the US?

I wonder whether there's research why the level of support is differing in the USA in comparison to many other countries (it was triggered by Tony Spiro's chart on the subject (http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=559). I assume it could be connected to religious groups' attempts to concealing themselves as scientific institutes (Discovery Institute), taking over school boards and inducing the "teach the controversy" idea into schools' curriculums.

Scientific opinion on evolution

I suggest a fork of related content to Scientific opinion on evolution, to mirror Scientific opinion on climate change. Any thoughts? Betters title? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The page on evolution is supposed to have all the scientific evidence, and among scientists evolution is unequivocal. There is always a fringe who doesn't agree for whatever (poorly) supported reasons, but in most cases that fringe can be ignored. Peteruetz (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No widespread support for creationism in India

This article wrongly puts India in the list of countries where belief in creationism is widespread. Personally I have not come across any person including of Abrahamic faiths who said they believe creationism is true. So India needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.62.36 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem with article II

I am not sure how to add my two cents so please bear with me. This article needs a major overhaul. It reads like a partisan pamphlet rather than an encyclopedia article. The tone and point of view is very partisan. It should be rewritten to be more objective. Thank you for your efforts though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.184.30 (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please be more specific when you say that the "article needs a major overhaul," given as how we're constantly bombarded with people making vague but vociferous complaints about tone and point of view, and who make it tortuously obvious, but can not spit out that these complaints are because the article is not an explicit Creationist propaganda piece For Jesus that casts unreasonable doubt on science.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Jehovah's Witnesses reject both evolution and creationism"

Wouldn't it be more accurate to specify that they consider the "creationism" label to only apply to Young Earth Creationists, and that they claim to not be creationists on this basis? The article at the same time affirms their creationist beliefs (although indeed not a Young Earth Creationist one). Their avoidance to participate in "worldly politics" also means that they will indeed not generally participate to movements like the Intelligent Design one, although they will hire lawyers to fight for tax-free status, to influence their national status as a religion (versus cult or sect) or to push for sanctions to apply if blood transfusions are administrated without consent by medical personnel; aspects which the reference alone is not enough to demonstrate.

But perhaps that we're already doing original research or synthesis based on a first-level source anyway with the current sentence, and that my proposal is also invalid, that we need more reliable sources? Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: please do not delete discussion points to improve the article, especially without specifying a valid reason. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If you intend to discuss improvements to the article, it would help if you did not confuse other editors with personal commentary grousing about how your own proposal possibly being also invalid in the first place, thereby making the discussion's purpose more clear.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a first reformulation suggestion, although there still is the problem of the primary source, and of my interpretation of their doctrine (which I am familiar with, although being a non-believer):

The Jehovah's Witnesses, although having published Day-age creationism literature to refute evolution (like Life - How Did It Get Here - By Evolution or by Creation?), reject the "creationist" label, which they consider to only apply to Young Earth Creationism.

List_of_Watch_Tower_Society_publications#Evolution_vs_creation also points to other related creationist material of the JWs. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As there was no objection to this suggestion, I reformulated the sentence of the article accordingly. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

New PEW survey

The latest data is very interesting, since it includes questions not only about public vs scientific beliefs, but the public's opinion about the degree of consensus among scientists, the public thinking there are differing scientific opinions when there are none. PEW 2015FriendlyFred (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Drilling down from that Public and Scientists Views on Science and Society, by clicking on the barchart I get to 'related' items, including their summary over time. I also got Pew in googling for 'public opinion of evolution' other items more recent than the 2009, 2007, and 2005 cited ones in article, will try and update the article content re Pew because 10 years old is a bit much.

• PEW: Trends on Beliefs about Evolution
• PEW: Public views on evolution, 2013
• PEW: Beyond the red vs blue, 2014

Think I'll also have to find commentary about the Pew results to convey re what most interpret the data to mean. (e.g. is it read as 'distrust of scientists' generally or 'evolution convincing folks', or something else.)

cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer re: Catholic support for evolution

I think this section should be removed:

But despite all of this, there are still many Catholics who believe that Genesis is meant to be taken literally and are well justified by what all the Church Fathers and Doctors have stated in the past, for example in the Catechism of Trent or Roman Catechism, (which is a very authoritative book for pastors), it says, "We now come to the meaning of the word sabbath. Sabbath is a Hebrew word which signifies cessation. To keep the Sabbath, therefore, means to cease from labor and to rest. In this sense the seventh day was called the Sabbath, because God, having finished the creation of the world, rested on that day from all the work which He had done. Thus it is called by the Lord in Exodus.<http://www.kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/>

There is no evidence presented that there are "still many Catholics who believe that Genesis is meant to be taken literally," and the notion that this belief would be "well justified" is a minority point of view offered by the center linked to at the end of the paragraph, which has no official role in the Catholic Church. The bit from the Catechism of Trent included here merely quotes from Genesis to describe the reasoning for the seventh day of rest; it does not signify that Genesis must be taken literally. In any case there has been a great deal of writing related to evolution and Genesis since the Catechism of Trent that not only allows for but encourages a figurative interpretation of Genesis, including in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. Siragitkey (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

On objectivity of Galileo Goes to Jail

While double-checking, I noticed a disproportionate number of citations from the book "Galileo Goes to Jail". I have obviously not read the entire book, but I can't say that I find the book neutral and objective, and I question whether it is reliable as a source for this Wikipedia article. Take for example the section on creationism in the UK:

The books says "By late 2005 antievolutionism in the United Kingdom had grown to such proportions that the retiring president of the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, devoted his farewell address to warning that “the core values of modern science are under serious threat from fundamentalism.”" That is not true. His farewell address was titled "Threats to tomorrow's world", and he devoted less than a minute to creationism, intelligent design and fundamentalism. The phrase "the core values of modern science are under serious threat from fundamentalism" never occurs in his address. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/about-us/history/Anniversary_Address_2005.pdf

The book then continues with "Within months the BBC shocked the nation when it announced the results of a poll showing that “four out of 10 people in the UK think that religious alternatives to Darwin’s theory of evolution should be taught as science in schools.”" No, the "nation" was not "shocked" by this announcement. The truth is "The findings prompted surprise from the scientific community. Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said...", and Rees was the only person from the "scientific community" interviewed by the BBC on that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm

--leuce (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Great book on how to create historical negationism. I moved one sentence back into the lead, btw. I am open to rewording as it has a focus on ID as written, but I didn't want to be too controversial. Lipsquid (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

On "very scientific society ... has issued statements rejecting intelligent design"

The sentence "Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design" is not a fair representation of the cited reference. Judge Jones wrote in his opinion in the Kitzmiller trial that he "initially note[s] that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution", and the "the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution" that he refers to is specifically that "evolutionary theory cannot account for life’s complexity" because of "real gaps in scientific knowledge". In addition, Judge Jones did not say that these societies had "issued statements rejecting" anything. Furthermore, Judge Jones did not refer to "nearly every scientific society" but only to "every scientific association that has spoken on the matter [of whether gaps in scientific knowledge negates evolutionary theory]".

I was unable to discover the source of Judge Jones' statement, but I suspect it is testimony by Kenneth Miller. I'm presently unable to determine what Dr Miller's source is (i.e. whether he literally meant "nearly every scientific society" or was simply generalising). I'm sure it's true, regardless.

Both Judge Jones and his source appear to believe that statements issued by scientific societies are binding on all of their members, and/or that their official opinions represent those of their members, and/or that any member of a scientific society who disagrees with an official statement by said society would cancel their membership :-) -- leuce (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Mark it as citation needed, if you think it need to be sourced. People will respond pretty quickly on this article, a couple of days at most I would guess. Lipsquid (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The old sentence was recently removed; I added a new sentence in its place that is hopefully closer to the source. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 01:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: if questioning that many societies did this, assuming that the source contained an erroneous claim, see List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design. It is also common to find statements about this on U.S. University websites. —PaleoNeonate - 01:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Level of support for evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm to http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209120655/http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf to http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm to http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140621050711/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130323080822/http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503 to http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/NUMCRX_excerpt.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Article title

The title of this article seems to actually be a euphemism to avoid saying what it is really about... the fact that creationists (further semantically disguised as intelligent design advocates) reject scientific facts about evolution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep. As a smart person said: "It's about belief, not about facts. Facts won't persuade those who belief." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Level of support for evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20070928001636/http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=2579 on http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=2579
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nsta.org/159%26psid%3D10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207173612/http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm to http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Level of support for evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622031856/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Level of support for evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014224931/http://onnachrichten.t-online.de/dyn/c/19/01/33/1901336.html to http://www2.onnachrichten.t-online.de/dyn/c/19/01/33/1901336.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110212053541/http://www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=50792 to http://www3.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=50792
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=R1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213221402/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/few_biologists.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/few_biologists.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224164219/http://www.errantskeptics.org/Quotes_Regarding_Creation_Evolution.htm to http://www.errantskeptics.org/Quotes_Regarding_Creation_Evolution.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021232820/http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc03.htm to http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021232820/http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc03.htm to http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921030214/http://www.emporia.edu/biosci/schrock/docs/Eagle-25.pdf to http://www.emporia.edu/biosci/schrock/docs/Eagle-25.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511125301/http://www.fasts.org/images/News2010/science%20literacy%20report%20final%20270710.pdf to http://www.fasts.org/images/News2010/science%20literacy%20report%20final%20270710.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305194947/https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/poll-darwin-survey-shows-international-consensus-on-acceptance-of-evolution.pdf to https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/poll-darwin-survey-shows-international-consensus-on-acceptance-of-evolution.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?CI=14107
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051217080148/http://harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581 to http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109070632/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf04311/pdf/tab42.pdf to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf04311/pdf/tab42.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929135233/http://srsstats.sbe.nsf.gov/preformatted-tables/1999/tables/TableC1.pdf to http://srsstats.sbe.nsf.gov/preformatted-tables/1999/tables/TableC1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Jehovah’s Witnesses

The chart states that 8% of Jehovah’s Witnesses accept evolution. The reference that is used to create the chart doesn’t even mention Jehovah’s Witnesses. Central to Jehovah’s Witnesses belief system is that the first man Adam, along with his wife Eve, both created by God, rebelled against God and in doing so alienated themselves and their future offspring from God’s universal family. In doing so they became imperfect and subject to death. To counteract this situation, God provided his only begotten son to come to earth as a human and through his sacrificial death, provide a ransom that would eventually restore humans to perfection along with associated blessings including eternal life (not immortality) on an earth restored to paradise conditions. Thus no one can claim to be a Jehovah’s Witness whilst at the same time believing in evolution which they claim is a pseudo scientific theory with no foundation. All the above information is readily available at jw.org. To claim that 8% of Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in evolution is the same as claiming that 8% of scientists believe that the earth is at the centre of the solar system with the sun and planets orbiting. Clearly ridiculous. I would advise that the chart reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses be removed as it amounts to what they would view as libel. Wisdom In Understanding (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The content is reliably sourced. Your comment "The reference that is used to create the chart doesn’t even mention Jehovah’s Witnesses" is clearly wrong. Theroadislong (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the source. —PaleoNeonate – 10:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

India

@Iflex: Please note that several sentences appear to be copied from [3] directly rather than summarized (and the material is not a quote). This could be considered a copyright violation and may be removed if you don't rewrite it in your own words. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

"origin of human life on earth"

The article currently states, "Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth" in the section on Support for evolution by religious bodies. But is this correct? I thought abiogenesis is different than evolution? Or am I reading this sentence too literally? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"Origin of human life" is different from "origin of life". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Claim of use in biochemical and genetic research - absent details

The article claims that the concept of evolution has implications for biochemical, cell biological and genetic research, but the details of the involvement of evolution in biochemical-genetical hypotheses formulation is lacking. It is useful that someone who can mention some details add such info to article.--185.53.198.166 (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is obsolete. I cannot find that "claim". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Dissent of Evolution?

Is there any chance of a page being created featuring the evidence against evolution? There is a section addressing dissent from religious groups, but also many in the scientific community disagree with theory (see here: https://dissentfromdarwin.org/). And in any case, it seems to me that this page should be more focused on supporting evolution, not offering both perspectives, so the dissent might be better fitted elsewhere.AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 17:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

See Objections to evolution. Editor2020 (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course, many in the scientific community disagree with theory is one of the many false rumors from the creationist echo chamber. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Article title

This has probably been discussed before, but shouldn't the title be "Support for evolution theory"? Maybe there are people wo object to evolution an sich, but that would be akin to objecting to the sun rising in the morning, and living beings growing old. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Adding "theory" would be a bad idea. Firstly, there are actually people who deny evolution an sich. Secondly, it would help pseudoscientists who frame evolution as "just a theory". Thirdly, "evolution" is the common term for the thing those people oppose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutrality of article

This article does not seem neutral to me. It is heavily biased towards evolution. As this is a controversial topic, it should be neutral. Whether or not evolution is true or not belongs on Evidence of common descent. We do not need two duplicated articles. Also, evolution is a theory, not a fact, which means it is only the best explanation, and not the unwavering reality for the origin of life by scientists. Since it is a controversial topic, not a fact, and has another article that already discusses the supports of common descent, it is necessary for this article to be neutral. I have put up a banner talking about the article needing some work to achieve neutrality, yet User:Dave souza removed it. Might I add, this article was almost deleted because of its non-neutrality, so this issue should be fixed as soon as possible. Also, this article was almost listed as a Good Article, but it failed because of non-neutrality. I think this article is unquestionably non-neutral. Zacharycmango (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Then there's also the problem of how many of the editors claiming that this and other evolutionary biology themed articles "need(s) to be more neutral in tone" always want this and other articles rewritten as Anti-Science Propaganda For Jesus, or as a mirror of Answers In Genesis.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Please do not personally attack me. I am not trying for this article to become "Anti-Science Propaganda For Jesus, or as a mirror of Answers In Genesis". On the contrary, I would hate for that to happen since it would not be neutral either. Zacharycmango (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not personally attacking you, I am merely stating a brutal truth I've seen repeat over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again the course of the decade and a half I've been editing at Wikipedia. And if you really, honestly want people to not assume you are among the "many of the editors" who do want this and other pages in Wikipedia rewritten as Anti-Science Propaganda For Jesus, I strongly recommend against repeating verbatim what Young Earth Creationists and other Anti-Science Folk For Jesus state, like word-mincing and word-lawyering about "evolution is a theory, not a fact," even though even "the theory of evolution" describes biological evolution. Furthermore, if you really want to be helpful, I also strongly second dave souza's urging for you to make specific, detailed proposals for article improvements, and not waste everyone's time by pontificating about how terrible and awful this page's alleged non-neutrality is.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not engage in Wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE so creationism has no place on this page. GliderMaven (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, the page shows the level of support for evolution science in contrast to opposing views, such as religious views including ID which proponents falsely claim to be science. These are minority views in the scientific context, WP:UNDUE policy applies: "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." dave souza, talk 20:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Zacharycmango, this talk page isn't a forum for your personal opinions or beliefs. Please make specific detailed proposals for article improvement, showing reliable sources to support the text, and make sure these proposals comply with the entirety of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy which you don't seem to be following. . dave souza, talk 20:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)