Conservapedia:Panel/Submit

From Conservapedia

Submit conflicts here. Thanks!

Theory of evolution

• Could the panel please review Theory of Evolution? You'll find some well argued reasons why here[1] and here User:AmesG/PanelEvolution as well as on the talk page for the article itself. Some alternative language has been proposed here: User:Hojimachong/Evolution. Thank you for your time. An estimated date for the ruling would be appreciated on the article talk page. Myk 22:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

• Also, User:Conservative has insisted on mining a quote (here) in such a disgusting manner that I suspect almost all of the quotes there to be mined. Please review this intellectual dishonesty and blatant lying. --Hojimachong^talk 00:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The quote was in the fossils section of the article. It accurately relays his opinion regarding the fossil record. Thank you. Conservative 00:54, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

The quote in it's entirety was included, and then you came along and cut out major portions of the quote. That's called abridging (described at quote mining), and if it changes the meaning, then it's inappropriate. --Hojimachong^talk 00:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The meaning of his opinion regarding the fossil record was not changed. Was it? Again, the section the quote was in was regarding the fossil record. Isn't that true? Therefore, no "quote mining". By the way, do scholars use the word "quote mining" in their writings? I don't think so. Conservative 01:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

That's because scholars are generally concerned with original research, not sifting through the work of others. Myk 01:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Erm, yes, yes it was. He was discussing plants and how the theory of evolution fits them best, but you take one sentence from the middle, take it out of context, and use it as a valid quote. And by the way, I never fashioned myself as a "scholar", and am not going to. --Hojimachong^talk 01:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

This little piece of quote-mining is symptomatic of everything wrong with the article. We're told that one individual, nearly fifty years ago, said something about the plant fossil record. Nowhere are we introduced to the state of the art. Nowhere are we told what the plant fossil record actually looks like. Nowhere are we told what evolution predicts the plant fossil record should look like. Nowhere are we shown where the predictions of evolution fail. This isn't about giving people the facts; it's about convincing people that they don't need to look at the facts at all. It's flagrantly dishonest, and it needs to stop now. Tsumetai 08:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

When might we expect a ruling on this?--British_cons (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Injunction on TOE

I am requesting an emergency injunction on editing Theory of Evolution, as several editors are engaged in a revert war. Geo.Talk 22:41, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

"Theory of Evolution" proposal from P. Rayment

If it's not too late, I'd like to make a new proposal regarding the Theory of Evolution article. I haven't participated in either the existing article or any alternative article, and I haven't read any version in great detail, although I've quickly looked through them.

I think it would be a mistake to endorse any particular version, as doing so would then raise the question of what changes would be acceptable, given the nature of wiki articles to continually be changed/improved/updated, etc.

I therefore propose that the Panel should provide an outline of how the article should be structured. The outline should be a guide to be followed in spirit, not legalistically.

I have also included below a suggested outline for consideration. I haven't compared this suggestion to any existing versions, so I do not know which version might come closest to this proposal. But that should be irrelevant.

---

General remarks

• Each section can include sub-sections as appropriate.
• No section should go into any aspect in too great a detail, but where appropriate should summarise and link to separate articles containing greater depth.

The introduction is to comprise a brief statement of what the biological theory of evolution is, including comment that it is a viewpoint and not an established fact.

Description

---

This section, which should comprise 50% to 70% of the article, will describe the theory of evolution. It will not argue for evolution nor treat it as fact, neither will it refute it. However, it can include evidence that evolutionists use to support their views if incorporated naturally into the description. It might, for example, say things along the lines of "Evolutionists believe that x demonstrates that y has occurred".

History

---

This section will provide a history of the development of the theory of evolution. It can include supportive statements such as "The discovery of x led evolutionists to conclude that y evolved into z".

Evolution as a belief

---

This section will explain that evolution, like creation, is a story primarily about the unobservable past, and that evolution is based on the presupposition of naturalism.

Evolution and the Bible

---

This section will explain the problems that creationists have with evolution, including supportive statements, such as "Creationists point to the severe (if not total) lack of evidence of any mechanism for generating new genetic information as fatal to the theory of evolution".

References, etc.

---

Other standard sections such as references, external links, etc. as appropriate.

Philip J. Rayment 12:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)