Conservapedia:AFD Evolutionism

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Evolutionism

Kept

Delete

  • This article is an attempt to tease proponents of evolution by telling them that their belief is a religion. It is unscholarly and, I suspect, merely intended to offend. As I pointed out on the talk/evolutionism page, what is the difference between this proposed religion and atheism? --Horace 00:57, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Sulgran 01:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • The article is a silly straw man definition. An article on evolutionism should describe the subject as an evolutionist would. Criticism could come later. RSchlafly 02:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • You won't find this term in any decent philosophy text. It appears to be a poor attempt at describing physicalism. The described 'line of reasoning' is simply wrong, too. Tsumetai 07:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Seriously delete. Article is complete nonsense. "Evolutionism is the worldview behind the 'scientific' theory of evolution." Uh, no? I can support the theory of evolution without starting at a "There is no God" worldview. There is no direct connection between religion and the theory of evolution. Sounds more like the Creationists can't accept that there are faithful Christians who support evolution. --Sid 3050 08:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree with Sid. This article is trying to make a scientific theory into a religion, something that it isn't. Furthermore, the sources given below are creationist sites which are obviously going to try to call evolution a religion to support their own view. ColinR 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)


Keep

Reading to consider for this position: Evolution is a religion, Is Evolution a religion?
These sources mention the faith involved in evolutionary thinking, and use that as an argument for calling it a religion.
  • Teasing: Feeling teased can also be the result of a good solid argument that an opponent feels defeated by, therefore we must see the article to see whether it was written in a teasing way or whether it just makes sense.
    Atheism: There are many ideologies that have basic roots in other more fundamental ideologies. It doesn't mean it can't be talked about. --Ymmotrojam 01:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Ive never heard the term before, anywhere - creator might have made it up himself. The term Darwinism is in common use though, to describe the clear religious positions evolution implies. Perhaps rename it to that?
What 'clear religious positions?' Tsumetai 13:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep CreationWiki and Wikipedia both have an article on this subject by the way. Conservative 19:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

From Wikipedia: "particularly in the U.S.A. this term is used by opponents of the theory to bolster their claim that evolution theory is a belief, or ideology (compared with other ideological "isms"), rather than a scientific theory." Hmmm. Also, since you broach the subject, user:Conservative, you should know that you shouldn't cite to CreationWiki as an authoritative source in your manifold private articles. It's bad form to cite to other Wikiprojects.--AmesG 20:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
CreationWiki is a trustworthy wiki because it is closed. Only approved editors allowed in. I would say it's a good source. Also, it is run by the Northwest Creation Network, a creationist organization, so they control the content. --Ymmotrojam 20:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Which is just a polite way of saying it's an echo chamber. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; CreationWiki is quite possibly the single worst source of scientific disinformation it's ever been my misfortune to encounter. I suspect that is precisely because it is closed. Tsumetai 05:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Btw, we should be citing the version we used of a particular page anyways if we cite a wiki. fyi --Ymmotrojam 20:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for proving my point re bias @ CreationWiki. Allow me to cross-apply to buttress my argument for non-usage.-AmesG 20:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
That's fine if you disagree with it, but all I'm saying is that it's not run by children. --Ymmotrojam 20:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Certainly not children per se, but...
Anyways, it's not that I disagree with it that should disqualify it, it's that it's inherently opinionated. Or should citing to Wikipedia be allowed?-AmesG 20:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
If we didn't include sources on the basis of being opinionated, we wouldn't have any sources. The whole point is to bring in the different opinions. In other words, CreationWiki would be more trustworthy of a Creation source than would be Conservapedia. --Ymmotrojam 20:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
No, Wikipedia does NOT have an article about "evolutionism" in the sense that is being shown here. The view from here is just a side note on the disambiguation page, along with a link to a short section on the Creation-evolution controversy page. The actual Evolutionism page mentions it here and there, but overall focuses on the more general historical context. If anything, the article needs to be a lot more concise and sourced. This isn't some major controversy or misunderstanding, it's just creationists asserting things. --Sid 3050 20:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Even if wikipedia doesn't have the same style of article as we have here (and is that really automatically a bad thing??), then all that means is the article simply needs a re-write and not deletion. Mathmo 08:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
"This isn't some major controversy or misunderstanding, it's just creationists asserting things."
Okay so what's the issue, the Evolutionism article can be written in such a way that it specifically says that's what creationists say. In fact it already says that now. It may not be a big thing in evolution circles, but it is in creation circles. --Ymmotrojam 20:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Quite a few parts say so, and I'm glad about that. I feel there should be a few more tweaks along the way to prevent making assertions ourselves, but the foundation is definitely there. What I mostly have issues with is the massive quote collection and the fact that the "Offensive Terminology" section apparently clashes with the sources.
But this is more a case for Talk:Evolutionism/Draft, so I'll cut it off at this point (it's also fairly late here, so I can't work on the article right now).
If this really is such a big thing for creationists, it's a good thing we got the draft going. Otherwise, we'd go through the same AFD in a few weeks. --Sid 3050 20:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Switching vote to KEEP Conditionally: so long as the article remains based on science and not the perceived theological outlook of evolutionists. --Crackertalk 21:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep, at worst the arguments for deletion appear to actually be wishing a rewrite. Which isn't a matter for AfD. Mathmo 08:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Keep, now that it's been rewritten.-AmesG 08:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Comments

    • I don't feel teased. I merely said that the article appeared to be an attempt to tease. I still regard that as correct. --Horace 01:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
      • Okay, then point out some quotes that you feel could be shown as teasing, and explain why. --Ymmotrojam 01:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
        • Well now that the article doesn't talk about evolutionism as a religion it is improved to some extent. But the problem is that the article is now pretty meaningless. Any belief in any set of things is a "worldview". Do all worldviews get a special name and a page in Conservapedia? Does everything from a love of hummingbirds to a belief that you shouldn't wear white shoes after Labor Day get to be a worldview? We obviously have a lot of work ahead of us if that is so. --Horace 02:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
          • I have no problem with a notability requirement here. And surely you see that this particular ideology is notable. --Ymmotrojam 02:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
            • I think it is pretty clear from what I have said above that I do not. --Horace 02:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
              • I don't know what to tell you then. Evolutionism/Creationism is one of the most discussed topics when people think of science and Christianity. Very notable. --Ymmotrojam 02:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
                • No. Not Evolutionism/Creationism. You mean Evolution/Creation. One minute you seem to understand the difference and the next minute you don't. --Horace 02:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
              • You're evading my question to show some quotes of where it looks like it was teasing. --Ymmotrojam 02:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
                • No, once I saw that you had withdrawn the claim that "evolutionism" was a religion I did not pursue that line further but I pointed out that the change made the article pretty meaningless. --Horace 02:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Redirect to Theory of Evolution. --Hojimachongtalk 01:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
    • The only problem I have with this is that Evolutionism is about the atheistic presupposition leading to the scientific theory, so therefore they are two different subjects worth two different articles. --Ymmotrojam 01:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • If we keep the article, I suggest a more radical banning policy. Anybody who calls anybody else an "evolutionist" without proving his/her atheism (and no, "supporter of evolution" does NOT imply "atheism") should be banned. Including sysops. I believe in God, and under this article's definition, anybody who calls me an "evolutionist" is insulting my faith in God. Fair is fair, let's be consequent. --Sid 3050 08:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Regarding the "Evolution is Religion" junk, are you joking? How could evolution be a religion? It's something people think approximates well to how life on this planet came about. You don't see people who support it walking into buildings (hint: like churches) and singing, reading from Darwin or simply making sure that the big man upstairs isn't going to hurt them for not going into said building once a week. If you think supporting evolution is a religion, you could say that about anything - gravity, eating corn flakes, baseball... personally I think this article should NOT BE KEPT. It's not a tease, it's merely an ignorant effort to keep people away from the facts regarding evolution and advance the Creationist agenda. - Mark 12:32, 19 March 2007
      • I'm with Sid. This is an insulting article and an insulting label. You can't call things "isms" just because you don't like them. Can we edit the article, sort of as a "preliminary injunction"??--AmesG 09:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Absent compelling reason to the contrary, I'm going to edit the article to make it passable and presentable to the world at large, and to prevent anyone from being insulted by the article before it's deleted.--AmesG 11:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank you kindly. :) --Sid 3050 12:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Draft Note

I moved the article into Draft space. The current article in my eyes seriously misrepresents science by forcefully tying it to religion, and the frequent reverts with high content fluctuations show that this requires some moderation, negotiation and proper sourcing before it reaches article status.

Please note that this does not replace the AFD, it's just an additional safety zone. --Sid 3050 13:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:AFD_Evolutionism"
Personal tools