4,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 20:
Line 20: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Evolution two (view source)
Revision as of 16:29, February 23, 2009
, 16:29, February 23, 2009edit old user's sig - there are 31 pages linking to non-existant "request for admin thanks to that
Ok TimS...the help is appreciated. The style of writing must be absolutely neutral. For example, we cannot do a brief on natural selection, then follow up with a creationist stance which starts "well, I think this is wrong and here's why...". There's going to be a rebuttal of the evidence to be sure, but each instance should be written as if there is absolutely nothing else in the article; we'd have Darwin's view on N.S., or Gould's, or whatever, and within the same subheading countering it is the creation viewpoint, but written as though the above was not there at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok TimS...the help is appreciated. The style of writing must be absolutely neutral. For example, we cannot do a brief on natural selection, then follow up with a creationist stance which starts "well, I think this is wrong and here's why...". There's going to be a rebuttal of the evidence to be sure, but each instance should be written as if there is absolutely nothing else in the article; we'd have Darwin's view on N.S., or Gould's, or whatever, and within the same subheading countering it is the creation viewpoint, but written as though the above was not there at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
The first reference is to a college textbook I am using for my biology class, which also lists a basic structure that I sort of copied on the main page for the article. No, I most certainly do not agree with what is said in it (or of what the professor said in my class!), but it's still a bonafide example of what is needed here for the article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
== A beginning ==
Chief, I have made a modest start (an introduction - perhaps in need of expansion) and the beginning of a history section. I have tried to be as neutral as I can. There are issues that arise out of neutrality however. For example, in the first paragraph I found myself using the phrase "God or gods" so as to include all the various religious versions of creation. I am not sure how this is likely to be received by those who favour the Christian creation (for example). Also, I have tried to use phrases such as "Natural selection ''proposes''..." so that I do not assert the proposition as settled fact.
Tell me what you think of the style and content so far and we can go from there.
I think that the structure you propose is pretty good. I foresee potential difficulties in the criticism sections as you and I work out which view gets the last word on any given point. But I am sure with some good will we can see it through to a successful result. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] <sup>Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop</sup> 20:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's a start, but sometimes the first intro paragraph on many articles can get weighty, with too much stuff added, too much of a mix tossed in, when it should be a simple statement introducing the subject to the reader. Since I feel that the article will probably fall under the new title "evolution vs. creation", we'd want some simple sentences at the immediate onset that state what evolution is, followed by what creation is, followed by a third which states something to the effect that both are at odds with one another. Because we each have our own beliefs in the subject, there's the temptation to add in the personal "I hate evolution!" or "Creation sucks!" lines...which is what we're going to have to learn to avoid. We'll experiment a few times with the into, just to see how it turns out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:28, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''''Evolution''' is a theory postulated by naturalist Charles Darwin in the mid-1800's which sought a scientific explanation for the creation of life on earth by natural means. '''Creation''' is the study of how life came to be on earth through the direct actions of a single, omnipotent God, as per the account told in the [[Bible]]'s book of [[Genesis]]. Evolution stipulates life evolved (changed) over the course of many millions of years from a single-celled organism, while Creation holds that life appeared very recently, and without change.''
An intro paragraph something like that, which immediately states what each is about. It does put them at a position that they're at odds with each other, but without verbal antagonism. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:49, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
On the history section you added, how about dividing it in two, with a "concept of evolution" as proposed by Lamarck, and those people who did something similar before, and "Darwin's theory" which is what Darwin did...and both can go into detail. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll have a go at rearranging the introduction more in line with your suggestion. I am not sure though that it is accurate to suggest that evolution was postulated by Darwin. I think, for example, that Lamarck believed in a form of evolution. I believe that Darwin's chief contribution was proposing natural selection as a driving force. Also, it occurs to me that we should not leave out the OECs in the introduction. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] <sup>Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop</sup> 19:25, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::We'll go at what looks and reads best for the intro. It could read ''evolution is a theory which began over a millenia ago, but gained ground during the 19th century as postulated by naturalists Charles Darwin, Alfred E. Newman, etc...'' As you can see, it could work from there as it provides a good, yet basic, structure. However, the inclusion of Newman is just a name pulled from a hat to fill that sentence; I don't think we'd be too happy to include the Mad Magazine mascot anywhere here! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
==Illustrations==
What I'd like to have are two illustrations per subheading, one for evolution, and one for creation. All illustrations should be as informative as possible, and should be complimentary in nature (not insulting). To introduce the article, I propose a piece of art by Albrecht Durer or Michaelangelo (creation), and an illustration from Darwin's book which shows a chain (such as Darwin's finches). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:I've never liked using Michaelangelo's picture of creation. By its age, it gives the impression that creation is a dated concept. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::It's not set in stone yet, but that particular one is appropriate for the intro. There's one floating about which I have seen years ago in a family Bible, in which God is standing in the clouds with one upraised arm as light is created. I would love that one, but I don't know the artist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
==References==
On this particular reference, ''Philosophie zoologique ou exposition des considérations relatives à l'histoire naturelle des animaux (1809)'', can you provide an English title, author (obviously Lamarck), and last publication status, similar to the book listed below? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:40, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:Never mind...I found it, as well as an online-translation that could be used as a reference link [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim/lamarck_contents.html] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:30, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
"Zoologic science, or, Exposition on considerations regarding the natural history of animals." Takes into account meaning of "philosophie" at the time.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)