Talk:Scientific Theory of Evolution

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is part of the evolution/disambiguation page structure that a couple of admins and I created to deal with issues of bias on this site. A number of editors have signed on to this project constructively, including some previous objectors. I'd appreciate it if it didn't get blanked. Please express your support for this project below.-AmesG 20:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The compromise was talked about the Creationism article but has gained more support from other admins elsewhere. Would-be-blankers: please respect our group consensus and do not put your own opinion above that of a good number of admins and editors.-AmesG 20:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Teach the Controversy

Evolution most certainly is not very controversial in the United States. A very very small fraction of the scientists who signed the discovery institute's petition against evolution have degrees in the life sciences, and the total number makes up a tiny fraction of scientists in the US. Court rulings in Dover show that legal precedent still sides with evolution. Additionally, the removal of ALL of the board members from the Dover board of education shows that the public there sides with evolution as well. The idea that there is any controversy at all is an overstatement lending power to a few dissident individuals stepping way from an enormous majority. --Charliemc86

Charlie, I wholly (!!!!) agree with you, I really do. Trust me, I revere the Kitzmiller decision for blasting ID out of the water. But this article will get deleted wholesale, and we'll have only the theory of evolution page, which is wholly unscientific. I think this might be the best we can do on this site. But could you please talk more about evolution as a positive in this article, rather than delete the "controversial" paragraph? I'd appreciate ANY ANY help you can give. Really, I'm hugely on your side.-AmesG 20:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
AmesG, I'm glad you agree, but I still feel claiming that there is a controversy at all is a creationist lie. It may be the best we can do, but saying there's a real issue here is a creationist viewpoint, not that of the majority of Americans. I'll have to come back and fill in more information about evolution when I've got a chance. If you want some good evidence for evolution, take a look at [1], a nonprofit aimed at stopping the spread of ID. I'd say that's a reasonable source for a scientific treatment of Evolution. --Charliemc86
You're right, it's a great source. Trust me Charlie. We're on the same page. Just I'm trying to work within this system as best as I can to stop them from slandering science. It's not going so well :-) but this might be a step in the right direction. Thanks for the cite, and I really appreciate your future contributions, and look forward to them!-AmesG 20:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I did a little editing on the last paragraph. It's now something I'm happy with, but still mentions the controversy. We'll see if there are any objections to it. --Charliemc86
It got rv'd by user:Ymmotrojam, but I thought it was fine... dunno why it was erased. -AmesG 20:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not biased enough I guess. Although, there are no issues with correctness in the old text, so I'm entitled to petition the change. Ymmotrojam, please explain your perversion? --User:Charliemc86
I just noticed the page was recreated and I copied the "backup" of it I had in a subpage of my userpage User:Ymmotrojam/Scientific Theory of Evolution. I didn't check the discussion first. --Ymmotrojam 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah lol. You had me worried, I knew you were sympathetic to this idea and worried you'd changed your mind.-AmesG 20:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay. I combined my last edit with the backup you restored. There is now mention of Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism. It may be helpful to point out which prominent Americans question evolution. --Charliemc86

Perhaps the problem is that the article fails to point out,

that evolutionary theory is based almost entirely on conjecture.

Seriously, BillOReillyFan, go read an actual science text before you contribute on this page. I've read AnswersinGenesis to be informed on your views, give me the same courtesy!-AmesG 20:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Consensus wording?

Is the content on this page part of a consensus or just the existence of the page. How much of this content is open to expansion and alteration? Tmtoulouse 20:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The wording is geared to be consensus building but it doesn't reflect a consensus. Still, though, it should bear the end goal in mind. What do you intent to change? Help is always appreciated.-AmesG 20:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I understand the end goal, I might want to take a shot at expanding the article some, as long as I am not stepping on toes. Tmtoulouse 20:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
By all means, be my guest :-). So long as we don't invoke the wrath of the admins, more clarity = good. I really appreciate it. Rockin'-AmesG 20:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't this kind of redundant

I'll be the first to admit that there is good material on this page, but do we really need another page on evolution. I think that we should try to keep conservapedia as consise as possible. Maybe we could try to merge it with the other one. --BenjaminS 21:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If you're talking about Theory of Evolution, you may want to read it. The information presented there has a strong right-wing bias, and severely understates the importance and acceptance of Evolution in science and popular culture. --Charliemc86

Charlie's got it, and the other article is humongous and managed by one admin - user:Conservative. So two problems - (1) I don't really want to mess with his turf, especially since we've had our conflicts, and, (2) merging it would be a lot of work and potentially offensive to people who like the old page. I personally like the disambiguation solution.-AmesG 21:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

So why do a POV fork? Aren't those usually discouraged? And it's not like there aren't a ton of other wikis out there, at least one of which will probably be less hostile to your version. --Interiot 21:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I guess it depends on your POV on what the goal of the site is: to be free of bias or to have a conservative bias. My issue isn't that Conservative is anti-evolution. It's that he locks the page and doesn't allow for the other POV to be presented.--Dave3172 21:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Paragraph sounds like it would be better on Evolutionism

"Evolution has been a recent source of controversy in the United States. Some prominent Americans seriously question evolution, based on a feeling that it conflicts with religious beliefs. However, religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Many deeply religious people believe that God set evolution into effect, which is no detraction to His majesty. This is referring to the theory of Theistic Evolution, which is distinctly different from Intelligent Design, a form of Creationism. Intelligent Design asserts that an Intelligent Designer (often God) oversees all changes in species."

This to me sounds like it's less about science, and more about a cultural reaction. The Evolutionism article is being to developed to cover that kind of thing. What do you guys think about moving it there? --Ymmotrojam 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd rather it be elsewhere, but I think the concern was that without it, we aren't "teaching the controversy." Perhaps mentioning it at the bottom will keep this page from getting blanked again. It's your call of course. --Charliemc86
Charlie's stating my concern - I had it there as a way of affirming the article's place within a regime structured towards neutrality, and preventing incurring the wrath of more conservative admins. That's the only real reason.-AmesG 21:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Well I'm not opposed to it, I'm just thinking that if this article is about the scientific theory, it should talk about scientific disagreements. I'll go ahead and move it in a little while if no one objects. --Ymmotrojam 21:10, 21 March 2007 (EDT)