153
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + +
Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 3 (view source)
Revision as of 17:25, March 15, 2007
, 17:25, March 15, 2007→Fundamental Issue
::WOVcenter, I appreciate your civility (AmesG was not very civil in his post above) and appreciate you wanting to improve the article. However, I don't believe that Conservapedia is going to make any substantial change in direction in regards to being against the evolutionary position. Here is what [[User:Aschlafly]] (who has authority over the Admins) has said about the Theory of Evolution article: "By the way, Theory of Evolution ranks number 3 in our most-visited pages, after the Main Page and Bias in Wikipedia. Well done!--Aschlafly 00:17, 27 February 2007 (EST)"[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::WOVcenter, I appreciate your civility (AmesG was not very civil in his post above) and appreciate you wanting to improve the article. However, I don't believe that Conservapedia is going to make any substantial change in direction in regards to being against the evolutionary position. Here is what [[User:Aschlafly]] (who has authority over the Admins) has said about the Theory of Evolution article: "By the way, Theory of Evolution ranks number 3 in our most-visited pages, after the Main Page and Bias in Wikipedia. Well done!--Aschlafly 00:17, 27 February 2007 (EST)"[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Conservative, thanks for responding. I don't at all want Conservapedia to change its stance on Evolution; it's pretty clear that your beliefs are strong. I'm merely trying to make the point that encyclopedia titles should match their content. Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but I feel this is incredibly important, and I'd like to have a cogent response to this particular point. If you have an entry called "Theory of Evolution", the article should speak to what that "Theory of Evolution" ''is'', rather than what it ''is not''. I have no doubt that all the anti-Evolution positions mentioned in the current article are positions that you hold dear. The fact still remains, though, that all these points are on the subject of ''controversy surrounding'' Evolution, rather than Evolution itself. All the books mentioned in your 'further readings' section quite correctly identify themselves as such. They're titled "Refuting Evolution", "Darwin on Trial", the "Creation-Evolution Controversy", etc. All of the titles of these books identify themselves as presenting arguments against Evolution, as part of the controversy surrounding Evolution; perhaps the article should do the same. This separation is something that Wikipedia does often, and rightfully, I feel. For example, say I'm a strong proponent of looser gun/ccw laws. There's no disagreement that there are varying disputes on the subject of gun control. So, where do I look for information on this on wikipedia? There's a page called 'Gun Politics'. My side's beliefs aren't found on the 'Gun', or 'Pistol/Handgun' page itself, and rightfully so. Okay, I'm not conflating gun control and evolution, but, the way these controversial issues should play out on an encyclopedia is important. My position on the structuring of this article is in no way trying to refute the claims made in the article. I'm merely saying, on a base writing-style level, that the article's title should more closely relate to the actual content. This is an article about the Evolution Controversy, as all your sources indicate, and as your content clearly illustrates. Labeling them as anything other than this just isn't correct. The article isn't about what Evolution is, it's about what it is ''not''. If these basic tenets of encyclopedia article writing aren't followed, at worst, this page may never come-off as anything more than angry hatespeech, and at best this page will come off as being poorly written. Please keep the articles intellectually honest. Thank you. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
There is nothing inherently 'conservative' about denying evolution. Charles Lyell was politically and religiously conservative, but he nonetheless accepted evolution based on scientific merit despite his personal distaste for the idea. Many, many professional scientists whose beliefs might also be described as conservative have also supported, even promoted evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the 20th century's greatest evolutionary biologists, is one example. Why is there the assumption that the term conservative is synonymous with 'christian'? Can't Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. be politically or socially conservative? Does this project exclude those people? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], you need to step aside here and allow people who are much more qualified than you are to take over. Your basic lack of scientific and historical understanding is shocking--or are you just more comfortable believing that every one of the dozens of posts attacking your miserable lack of knowledge of this subject is written by a liberal who is out to get you? --[[User:porkchop|porkchop]] 10:17, 15 March 2007
There is nothing inherently 'conservative' about denying evolution. Charles Lyell was politically and religiously conservative, but he nonetheless accepted evolution based on scientific merit despite his personal distaste for the idea. Many, many professional scientists whose beliefs might also be described as conservative have also supported, even promoted evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the 20th century's greatest evolutionary biologists, is one example. Why is there the assumption that the term conservative is synonymous with 'christian'? Can't Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. be politically or socially conservative? Does this project exclude those people? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], you need to step aside here and allow people who are much more qualified than you are to take over. Your basic lack of scientific and historical understanding is shocking--or are you just more comfortable believing that every one of the dozens of posts attacking your miserable lack of knowledge of this subject is written by a liberal who is out to get you? --[[User:porkchop|porkchop]] 10:17, 15 March 2007