|!||This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.|
- 1 Ray Martinez' changes
- 2 Essay
- 3 So I've looked at the versions in the article history....
- 4 Re: Which version to keep
- 5 Regarding locking the page: Comments from Admin/SYSOP with the username Conservative
- 6 to: Ray, from Admin/SYSOP with the username Conservative
- 7 Theistic evolution, some slightly suggested sources
- 8 Suggestion from a Admin/SYSOP
- 9 Could we unprotect now-+ a comment
- 10 Please do not add the Pope endorsing theistic evolution until Admin Aschlafly decides if he wants to weigh in since he said he studied this matter in depth
- 11 Ray Martinez the young earth creationist dissent draft
- 12 complaints about my administrative decision yesterday
- 13 Compatibility
- 14 Unguided by Definition?
- 15 ASA Link
- 16 Category
Ray Martinez' changes
I will add various source cites shortly.
Ray Martinez 15:04, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Painting with a broad brush here,aren't you? --Dave3172 15:31, 8 March 2007 (EST)
We are tired of so called Christians doing the bidding of Atheists; if the shoe fits wear it. TEists are double-agents; since when do Christians accept the origins theory that all Atheists subscribe to? As the article says, the Bible provides the explanation.
Ray Martinez 16:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)
First off, who is "we?" There are numerous conservatives and Christians who believe that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create Man, and I hardly think you, I or anyone is in a position to tell them that that they are not good Christians for believing so.
- We = persons who are not fooled by TEists.
Second, your basic premise is flawed. Please show me in the Bible where it specifically states that evolution was not the mechanism used to create Man.
- The Bible is the premier source of Supernaturalism; Genesis says special creation was the origin of Adamkind. Your "question" is phony attempting to make "a point" or you are shockingly ignorant.
Lastly, this entire piece devolves rapidly into opinion and outright insults. If you want to criticize TE, then you need to so more rationally. --Dave3172 16:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- There are no insults; in other words: the truth hurts and since you are an evolutionist your disapproval is the best endorsement I could obtain.
Ray Martinez 16:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)
The part about "which all atheists rabidly support" is perhaps a bit overenthusiastic.--Murray 16:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- How so? All atheists do as such.
Ray Martinez 17:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Well, "rabid" is clearly your opinion, and whether intentional or otherwise it is likely to come across as insulting. Additionally, how do you know that "all" atheists believe the theory of evolution is correct? I would imagine the 2 beliefs tend to co-occur frequently but it's quite plausible one could believe one and not the other.--Murray 17:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
I removed the word to give the article a more formal tone. --trekie9001 17:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- I restored the atheist vandalism; I have reported you
Ray Martinez 17:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Yeah, whatever Martinez. Report me all you like. If this community bans me because I changed rabidly to strongly then it is a very poor encyclopedia. Wikipedia never reverts your edits and says "only atheists may make this change" like you stated in your comment. This "encyclopedia" is starting to look like a joke. --trekie9001 17:32, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Most of this article reads like an essay and doesn't address or even attempt to list the Christian denominations which suscribe to TE. JoshuaZ 17:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- You have been reported too.
- Did you miss the sub-heading?
Ray Martinez 18:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- Hmm? Which subheading? JoshuaZ 19:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)
A critical view of Darwinists in sheeps clothing
Ray Martinez 19:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)
So I've looked at the versions in the article history....
...and I'm still not clear on exactly what Theistic Evolution is supposed to be.
Teilhard de Chardin, perhaps? Dpbsmith 19:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- Essentially, it is the idea that creationism is compatibel with evolution. I presumably should have just said that explicitly. JoshuaZ 19:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Re: Which version to keep
I think that when it comes to which article best represents an encyclopedic article the revision done by JoshuaZ should bbe selected. --trekie9001 19:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Regarding locking the page: Comments from Admin/SYSOP with the username Conservative
1. Senior Admin Aschlafly (see: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Aschlafly ) seems to know a lot about the Pope's statements in regards to the Creation/evolution issue. I think he should mediate or arbitrate this particular issue or if he is too busy then more sources should be cited in order to corroborate this matter.
2. I looked at the evolutionists versions and there were many statements uncited by footnotes.
3. I have looked at creationists Ray Martinez's work in the past and I know that he can produce good work. However, I looked at Ray Martinez's version briefly and immediately ran across unencyclopedic language. For example, I found this unencyclopedic: "A critical view of Darwinists in sheeps clothing" I also think you should have used footnotes instead of a bibliography since the evo/creo issue can be contentious.
- The first thing I said in Discussion was that all source cites would follow shortly. As far as terminology goes; the page was intended as sharp and blunt sword swings. I will not pursue this anymore. My work will appear on my own Wiki site in the near future - a site which will feature a topic and two views side by side. I realize that my hard line Creationism is too hot to handle and I am comforted that what I wrote made Darwinists see red and froth at the mouth.
Ray Martinez 19:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- No, what you wrote was unsupportable claptrap and insulting to a wide host of people. Had you presented your views in a rational, reasoned tone, none of this would have been needed.--Dave3172 19:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)
4. I don't think theistic evolution should be such a contentious issue as far as what it is if you stick to the facts. I suggest the two diametrically opposed sides stick to the facts and scrupuously footnote this article since it is becoming contentious.
5. My opinion regarding TalkOrigins.org being a mostly unreliable source is well known. No further comments about this matter in this particular discussion page. I do realize that creationists have people who produce unreliable material as well.
6. I wish I had more time to Mediate/arbitrate this particular issue but unfortunately I do not. I do appreciate each sides efforts though and decided to temporarily lock the page until a quality article can be created with internal footnotes supporting each fact.
Here is where I suggest creating a new version with footnotes in the body of the work supporting each fact that you state: Draft/Theistic Evolution
Conservative 19:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative
- Considering how Draft may later be used for the, well, draft, the draft should possibly be made at Theistic Evolution/draft </suggestion from somebody who only noticed that the article imploded after all the action happened> --Sid 3050 19:36, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- Ok, pursuant to these comments, I have started a draft, hopefully with enough sourcing. JoshuaZ 19:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)
to: Ray, from Admin/SYSOP with the username Conservative
Ray, I do know that you are knowledgeable on the creo/evo issue, however, I just reasonably ask that you footnote your material in regards to its internal statements given the contentious nature of the creo/evo issue. I don't think you should just throw in the towel and give up. I believe you could add some valuable input to a article if you wanted to. I also ask that you refrain from inflamatory characterizations like "sheeps clothing" which I also believe is necesary for an encyclopedia to have. An encyclopedia is much more authoritative in tone if it uses non inflamatory language. Conservative 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Theistic evolution, some slightly suggested sources
I don't have the time to read a lot of articles on the topic of "Theistic Evolution". However, I did briefly scan some articles and they did appear to be written by credible sources (for example, one article PHD after the authors name).
Please don't think I think these articles are necessarily good. I just want to create a starting point.
Please take a look at these articles:
Multiple source article with many quotes w/ sources: 
Footnoted article: 
ASA article Written by a PHD: 
5 footnotes in article: 
I hope this helps. Conservative 20:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative
- I'll take a look but will incidentally note that number of footsnotes or the presence of a PhD does not help with reliability by most definitions. JoshuaZ 20:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- I said I don't endorse the sources. I scanned them. Most at least have the appearance of scholarship (footnotes). Conservative 20:51, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Suggestion from a Admin/SYSOP
Participants in dispute, I suggest posting competing versions next to each other here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Theistic_Evolution/draft and then decide what you agree on if anything.
I highly suggest you use sources with footnotes or sources that use quotes from good sources. Conservative 21:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Could we unprotect now-+ a comment
The criticism of Theistic evolution in this context is not coming from people because they are "evolutionists" but generally due to atheism or other reasons. Also, since we seem to have most users agreeing on a draft, can we take out the protection? JoshuaZ 23:31, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- I am unprotecting now. Again, please do not add the Pope comment yet. Conservative 23:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Please do not add the Pope endorsing theistic evolution until Admin Aschlafly decides if he wants to weigh in since he said he studied this matter in depth
Please do not add the Pope endorsing theistic evolution until Admin Aschlafly decides if he wants to weigh in since he said he studied this matter in depth. In the absence of Admin Aschlafly weighing in within a reasonable time, further corroboration should be done. I don't want Conservapedia overly dependent on Mr. Aschlafly. Conservative 23:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative
- He did weigh in on Theistic Evolution/draft but only briefly and no explanation of his analysis. I will in any event wait until we reach some form of consensus as to a) whether the Pope supported TE and b) whether it makes sense to mention him. JoshuaZ 23:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- If I may ask, is Aschlafly the one to give blessing to a particular piece? His opinion about the Pope seems to contradict a common sense reading of what was said. It is one thing to be pro-American and pro-Christian -- it is quite another to be lock step with a single religious mindset. To restrict theological writing to that one opinion (whichever opinion it is) leaves a large portion of Christianity out. If that is the case that the restriction is there, this becomes more a community contributed Aschlaflyian blog with a search engine than a source of information that is free of the bias that he perceives in Wikipedia. --Mtur 23:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- Mtur, you are not the first person to raise this concern, I suggest you mention it to Andrew directly. JoshuaZ 00:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Ray Martinez the young earth creationist dissent draft
- content erased by Ray Martinez. I own the copyright on my work and I do not give permission to use it on this site. Also, I am not a Young Earth Creationist. 
- Ray Martinez 16:38, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Draft/Theistic_Evolution"
Conservative 23:40, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative
complaints about my administrative decision yesterday
I received some complaints that I was not as fair as I could have been to Ray Martinez. Now before I write anymore about the matter I will say that I think Ray Martinez is knowledgeable about the creation-evolution controversy. However, here is what I wrote to Ray today.
You requested my help as a Admin yesterday. I may have been able to help you more yesterday but I had limited time and I didn't have time to implement the rewrite to your material that I suggested.
Before I go into why it needed to be rewritten I want you to read what the owner of the site wrote to me.
Here is what the owner of the site wrote me:
"Conservative, your titles in the The Theory of Evolution are too argumentative. Please present facts without so much of the argumentative terminology. Thanks.--Aschlafly 20:20, 25 February 2007 (EST)" 
Simply put, you style of writing was too argumentative in the Theistic evolution article you proposed and I didn't have time rewrite it.
Lastly, if your style of writing is argumentative it is more likely to be erased by people. I simply don't have the time to be watching a lot of individuals material that is written in a argumentative tone. I am not asking you to water down the facts. I am merely asking you to have a less argumentative tone to your writing.
Conservative 16:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
"Evolution was designed to give an alternative to Creation because people did not want to believe in God." Seems like this statement should have some source to back it up, if it's genuinely intended to make the claim that Darwin/Wallace (presumably) specifically set out to create an explanation for life that left God out.--Murray 16:25, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- I would contend that it is irrelevant if Darwin and/or Wallace were athiests. If the theory is sound, then its sound regardless of theie intent. If we condemned items strictly on who hand a hand in their development, we wouldn't be driving Volkswagens on the Interstate Highway System, both of which had their genesis in Nazi Germany.--Dave3172 16:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Perhaps it depends on how "the theory of evolution" is defined. Suppose "evolution" means (1) that various forms of life came into being gradually over millions of years and (2) that God had nothing whatsoever to do with this process. Then certainly this is incompatible with Young Earth Creationism, which directly denies both points. YE creationists say that life came into being during a very short period (as little as six 24-hour days), and that this creation period took place less than 10,000 years ago. They also quite plainly say that God made this all happen. So I fail to see any possibility of reconciliation or compromise here. The two views are utterly at odds with each other. (To paraphrase Claude Reins in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, "If they are right, I am that much wrong.")
Some creationists accept certain aspects of evolution while denying others. Old Earth creationists accept the timeline posited by geologists and biologists regarding the fossil record. They agree with mainstream evolutionists - even the materialistic-naturalistic ones - that the fossils are an authentic record of the appearance of the various species of life. That is, dinosaurs came into being tens of millions of years ago and died out long before 4,000 B.C.
This view clashes with YE creationism in terms of dates, while agreeing with the YE idea that God made it all happen; i.e., God created every kind of living creature and Personally created human beings. (Note the capital letter on Personally.)
This view agrees with "evolution" - that is, the version NCSE advocates - in one respect. It accepts the authenticity of the fossil record as showing when each species came into being. But whether it agrees with "evolution through natural selection" is another story. And here it gets too complex for me to go into before lunch, so I invite everyone's comments on what I've written so far. --Ed Poor 13:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
- I don't think "evolution" is a simple word, or that it has a simple meaning. It is used in very different ways which can be confusing to our typical reader. Our Definitions of evolution article attempts to straighten out this confusion, but doesn't do so very well.
- Certainly as a general term it means any change over time. This website has "evolved", for example, since late last year. But what causes evolution is an often crucial question.
- In the origins debate, "evolution" can mean (1) how life came from inorganic matter via natural causes, (2) how forms of life changed in response to natural forces, or (3) both of these.
- To make matters worse, Old Earth creationists variously say they "believe in evolution" or "disbelieve in evolution" (using two opposite meanings of evolution).
- When they say that they believe in "evolution", they mean that they agree with mainstream geologists and biologists that the earth is billions of years old and that forms of life appeared when and where the fossil record indicates. That is, they agree that new species came into being over 100s of millions of years. On the other hand, they generally disagree with the idea that natural forces (such as mutation) caused these new species to come into being.
- When they say that the disbelieve in "evolution", they likewise mean that they agree with the authenticity and timing of the events mentioned above, and that they reject evolution because they reject the idea of purely natural causation.
- When Evolution proponents say that most Americans "believe in evolution", they are including the 12% to 15% who accept unguided evolution (aka Darwinism or "the theory of evolution"); along with the 40% of Americans who are Old Earth creationsts and who reject unguided evolution.
- (This is a distinction which Wikipedia refuses to allow. I am on probation there, on the trumped up change of "POV pushing", for trying to make the distinction I have outlined above.)
- (Evolution partisans don't want to allow clear distinctions. They want to pretend that people agree with them, so they can force their opinions on others.)
- Eventually, I hope to clarify these points. Perhaps you can help. --Ed Poor 13:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Unguided by Definition?
Why the re-write box? Is Evolution, by definition unguided? And if for our purposes we are saying evolution means unguided, what do we call the belief that 'a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations' is being caused and guided by God? --Birdie 14:09, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
I added a reference to an organization of scientists who are Christians and seem to have no problems understanding evolution. Burgy 15:49, 19 January 2009 (EST)
- Had to revert it. Evolution is a theory; it is not a fact. The entry would have to be re-written to reflect that. Karajou 15:08, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- Last time this was added (and presumably lost with the recent crash), I did reword it somehow, and I'll try and remember how and put it back in. I believe that I also replied to Burgy to point out that even YECs have no trouble understanding evolution. It's not understanding it that's the problem. It's whether or not it happened. Philip J. Rayment 20:28, 4 February 2009 (EST)