Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 303:
Line 303: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Lengthy question about Evolution
==Protect==
==Protect==
I protected your talk page so the vandal won't vandalize it.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 10:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
I protected your talk page so the vandal won't vandalize it.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 10:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
==Evolution==
Hi, Terry.
Have we pretty much decided on an editorial policy which asserts that ''no human evolution'' has taken place? This is the position held by 85% of Americans, i.e., the majority Creationist viewpoint.
If so, would it be wise (or practical) to have a series of article about ''why'' evolutionists keep promoting [[evolution]]? Or perhaps about what ''evidence'' they see in the [[fossil record]] that any evolution has taken place?
This might ruffle a few feathers, because [[Young Earth Creationists]] assert that the history of life on earth goes back less than 10,000 years - effectively denying the "mainstream" view of geology and biology about fossils. On the other hand, [[Old Earth Creationsts]] agree with geologists and biologists about the age of the [[Earth]] - as well as the extent of the history of life.
Is there a way to write about all this without offending our conservative writer base? (I'm not worried about offending liberals! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)