Talk:Definition of evolution

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GofG (Talk | contribs) at 09:51, 8 April 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Highly informative expansion of my stub. Never know that about the "nothing makes sense" quote, which I gather gets taken out of context a lot.--Ed Poor 12:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Some may say that we should settle on the correct definition, and stick with that. But I think that it is clear that several definitions are in common use. I would also like definitions that pro-evolution folks are happy with. RSchlafly 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a lot of potential here. The lefty thing is a bit annoying, perhaps because it hit too close to home...that being said and disclosed, it is not actually a common scientific interpretation as stated. If you were to add a pure atheist view of evolution, you might say something like,

Evolution completely explains life on Earth, with no need for recourse to supernatural causes. Evolution is amoral."

PalMD 15:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the last definition is really philosophy and not science. I would exclude it, except that it really comes into debates about evolution. I just added a couple of references that say that unplanned, unguided, and random are part of evolution. RSchlafly 15:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for adding the bit about unguided evolution. My attempts to wedge that into Wikipedia is what got JoshuaZ and company to have me put on probation. (Bitter, and proud!) --Ed Poor 15:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

that Earth is insignificant?

Materially insignificant, possibly - there are billions of other stars and planets. However you will find a wide range of opinion within the scientific community on the question of "life other places" or even "intelligent life other places". To this extent Earth is very significant, it is the only planet in the universe where life is known to exist. I don't think you will find anyone in the group of 'leftist-atheist' who will claim that in terms of life, the earth is insignificant. --Mtur 15:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The most materialist of scientists would likely argue that while the Earth may or may not be unique, it is certainly significant, being the place where we evolved and live. See the "anthropic principle".PalMD 15:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I am under the impression that it is primarily leftists and atheists who argue that life on Earth is insignificant because of life on other planets, billions of stars, Darwinian processes, etc. I don't have any references handy. I am throwing it out here for discussion. RSchlafly 17:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Alas, such nonsense. The page contains not-so-much a valid definition as a whining screed again evolution written by folks who know nothing of evolution. NousEpirrhytos 07:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

eh what?

A leftist-atheist philosophy. This says that man is no better than an animal; that Earth is insignificant; that progress does not exist; that the history of life is unguided, unplanned, and random;[3] and that materialist explanations have replaced all spiritual ones. Various other ideas may also be included, depending on the evolutionist.

eh? where did this get dragged up from? what's the connection between people on the left and being an atheist? I'm (british) right and an atheist. As for the rest of it, the mind bogggles! --Cgday 08:26, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Roger, that is a comment beneath you. It is insulting, uncited, and unChristian. As I said most scientists, and atheists, and leftists, consider the Earth pretty darn significant, as we live here. That does not change the cosmologic fact that we are one of billions of solar systems, so cosmologically not particularly significant. But, from a human perspective, Earth could hardly be more significant. --PalMDtalk 08:28, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

That bit about a leftist-atheist philosophy is out of place, I believe. It is how some people see evolution our place in the universe and how they see the lack of purpose in evolution, but it's not a definition of evolution per se. I think it likely belongs in the article (perhaps modified somewhat), but not as a definition. Philip J. Rayment 08:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

That particular definition

As per grand consensus on this discussion page and the discussion page of Theory of Evolution, I am removing the fourth definition. GofG ||| Talk 09:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)