1,410
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory (view source)
Revision as of 02:17, May 22, 2007
, 02:17, May 22, 2007→Do we need this article
If we want a big piece on falsification and whether evolutionary theory is falsifiable then it shouldn't be on this page (it should probably be on the main evolution page but us plebs can't edit that one). Thoughts? --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 21:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
If we want a big piece on falsification and whether evolutionary theory is falsifiable then it shouldn't be on this page (it should probably be on the main evolution page but us plebs can't edit that one). Thoughts? --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 21:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the article is salvagable.
== Question about an edit Igor nz made ==
I do want to point out that this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_is_an_unproved_theory&diff=170545&oldid=168263 edit] introduced this sentence:
{{cquote|In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <nowiki><ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref></nowiki>"}}
Several problems with this particular sentence:
:1. Have you read this article? Is it fairly characterized? I do not think so. <nowiki>[In the interest of disclosure, I have very good reason to believe that the article actually states: "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."</nowiki> p. 23
So, my question is, have you read the article in question? No, don't answer if you don't want to. I don't want to make allegations that push you into a corner. In the interest of intellectual honesty, it would be good to have an evolutionist (read: Somebody who supports the "scientific theory of evolution") help make such conservapedia articles better. But based on the information I have regarding the Newsweek article, your summary of it was less than accurate, and exaggerated, and leads me to suspect you may have simply cut and paste it from an evolutionist website. Again, please don't take this suspicion as an attack against you personally. Rather, either just deny it, or, if true, let's not let it happen again. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big><sub><small>HeartOfGold</small></sub>]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|<sup><small>talk</small></sup>]] 22:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)