Talk:Evolutionism/Draft

Wow. I've been gone a couple of days and missed the discussion on this article, and all I can say is wow. This is ridiculous. Evolution is not a religion. Period. And you can't quote biased creationist sites to try to prove evolution is a religion. I know this article was on the AFD list at one point, I recommend it go back on there. This kind of stuff doesn't help conservapedia at all. ColinR 13:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

So what's your point? Why not have a contraversy section that defends both sides? There's nothig wrong with sourcing creationists sites, except for the fact that you disagree with them. --Ymmotrojam 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Look, creationist sites are hardly reputable sources for proving evolution is a religion. If you find a site created by an "evolutionist" saying that evolution is a religion, I may be able to take this article a little more seriously. Until then, I stand by my position that this article needs to be deleted as soon as possible. ColinR 13:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

What controversy? This is just creationists pointing wildly and asserting that supporting evolution is the same as "believing". Evolution is NOT a religion, and many, many Christians support it. The current article claims that, in order to end up at the conclusion that evolution is most likely right, you can't believe in God in some form. Sorry, but the split is not "Christians vs. Evolutionists". --Sid 3050 13:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. It seems clear from reading the article that a) one can take the position described without actually accepting evolution, and b) one can accept evolution without taking the position described. Calling it 'evolutionism' is just a cheap shot meant to reduce a sound scientific theory to an unsupported belief system. Tsumetai 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It still is on AFD (hence the note about the Draft box). I just moved it to Draft for exactly the same reasons you pointed out. There had been a couple of reverts by now, and I wanted to avoid a revert war "out in the open". --Sid 3050 13:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Followers of evolutionism"? This keeps getting weirder. If you can cite a source that discusses "evolutionism" and "following evolutionism" by anyone who claims to be a proponent I'd be heartily surprised.--Murray 13:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Until sources are cited and this page can be made fair to both sides of the issue (if possible), it should remain as a draft. After a time, if it cannot be made acceptable, we should just do away with it. There is no evidence shown (through citation or elsewhere) that "evolutionism" is anything more than a jargon used by a few creationists, and so cannot be considered to be used by the majority of conservatives (or anyone), thus does not warrant a page. --Dikaiosune 4:38 19 March 2007

May I add that the option cited above by Jmmotrojam of "teaching the controversy" is another example of fallacious reasoning. Just because there is a "controversy" on an issue doesn't mean that both sides deserve to be discussed. You cannot "teach the controversy" in a math class of how some homeless guy told you that 2+2=5, and you think his opinion should be "respected." Disagreement is fine, and reasonable disagreement should be discussed, but unreasonable disagreement does not deserve to be placed on equal footing with a reasonable allegation

Exempli gratium - creationism is not a reasonable scientific alternative to education. Therefore it does not deserve to be taught (see e.g. Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F. Supp.2d 724). Less "controversially," describing evolution as a religion is unreasonable, and does not deserve equal time.--AmesG 20:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Commentary on the Draft

I'm sorry, but this whole thing deserves to die. There should be no "evolutionism" article unless it's about how it's a slur used against your average God-fearing, non-atheistic man-on-the-street who believes in evolution.-AmesG 17:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This is fun!

I'm going to take credit for this entire article for objecting to being called an evolutionist. Can I take credit for it?

Oh... I don't understand this logic line of thought from the draft:

There is no God (worldview) > Therefore we need to explain everything based on that "fact" > Thus science is altered based on the "no God" idea Evolutionism comes before the Scientific Theory of Evolution. The theory is based on the worldview.

It seems the entire premise is formed upon the idea that people that believe evolution happens believe there is no God. So... Atheism is the worldview, isn't it? Not evolutionism. And besides... NOT ALL PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION ARE ATHEISTS. Mwar! Stop telling me I don't believe in God! Myk 18:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

If this stays then Quote mining ought to stay too. --Cracker^talk 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Gravitationism, Electricityism, Wheelism

Horace, you wanted a response. Okay, let's think about this facetious comment/edit in a logical way. What can you really say about those things? Can you say that certain forms of them are based in Naturalism, or Atheism, or Materialism? How many people hold to those? On the other hand, there is obviously disagreement over Evolutionism on this wiki, but multiple sources I've referenced do not agree with you guys. Even if you don't like the term Evolutionism, still the idea of Evolution carries much more weight then those things you mentioned. Therefore, I've removed that useless edit. Please try to be more constructive. Please take note that I would love counter arguments to be placed here. In fact I've added a link from TalkOrigins. This article is very much balanced. --Ymmotrojam 19:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe in evolution in the same way I believe in gravity, the same way I believe in electricity, the same way I believe in chemistry. Ao I ask you, in what way are those terms facetious? Myk 19:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Believe"? ;-) <-- That's what I mean by facetious. Not the terms themselves, the way he did it and is not trying to be constructive. A better edit would be adding a quote or two from an evolutionist website, with a source. --Ymmotrojam 19:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

• Exactly! I don't believe in those things. Hence, believing them all the same way. Myk 21:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ymmotrojam, if you want to be constructive you will forget this silly article all together. As has been pointed out it is just a straw man argument. If you want to debate creation and evolution I would applaud that. What you have chosen to do, however, is indulge in what is effectively a name-calling exercise. This article is not a serious entry in an encyclopedic work. It's a piece of cheap propaganda. --Horace 19:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I again go back to the fact that I did not create the term, and I am continuing to source my claims. Also note that it's a draft (preliminary version of a written work). This doesn't have to be, nor do I desire it to be the finished product as it is now. Lets work together on it. It is definitely encyclopedic material. --Ymmotrojam 19:42, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

...no, it's not. Your sources all have the agenda of making science (and thus evolution) look less credible. Find me a few notable, reliable, non-creationist sources that support your claim.

I can find sources that "prove" that the Holocaust never happened and that Adolf Hitler should have received the Nobel Peace Prize, but that doesn't mean that I can create an article called "The Holocaust never happened!" However, I could create an article about Holocaust Denial. Just like this should be an article about how Creationists try to assert something about evolutionists. Nothing more. You mistake propaganda for facts. --Sid 3050 19:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

You're on very dangerous intellectual ground to not accept any sources from an opponent. Sounds almost elitist. If you've got sources and counter arguments you would like to add, be my guest. If it's a good position, one will win out over the other. That's just the nature of how things work when both sides are presented. You shouldn't be so afraid if you're so sure of yourself.
"Your sources all have the agenda of making science...look less credible."
That's an completely unfounded claim. There whole point is to protect the distortion of science by the evolutionary theory. --Ymmotrojam 20:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ymmotrojam, have you ever read a text on Evolution? Let us mean what we say, and say what we mean: I mean to say, what do you know about science, to think that evolution harms it?--AmesG 20:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I have a very open mind, actually. However, when you state that something is encyclopedic material, you should be able to find at least SOME sources other than one of the involved sides. Right now, the concept of "Evolutionism" is as encyclopedic as the "O RLY?" owl, and LESS encyclopedic than the Star Wars kid, Pastafarianism and possibly "All your base are belong to us".

I read through the two sources that were in the initial version. One of them is a pure quote collection (once again: Science, research and a good argumentation is not done by collecting as many quotes as possible), but the Creationists.org source made me laugh for a very long time. Not even on this site have I ever seen such a lack of understanding of scientific work. The source reads as if scientists looked at some bones and went "Okay, I have no idea how old it is or what it belonged to, so let's just make some random stuff up and have faith in it".

The whole "Present both sides, argue with me, find counter-arguments! Or are you afraid?" gig doesn't apply when the initial claim starts off on complete nonsense.

Your sources construct a wrong image of science, scientists and the scientific method in regard to evolution and then "prove" how that image can be seen as a religion. Then they just declare "It's proven! Evolution is religion!". --Sid 3050 20:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Christianity and evolution

From the latest edit:

Many that hold to the theory of evolution have been known to be atheists as well, but this does not represent the entirety or whole.

I just read that in AiG ("Evolution as religion") and think that it clashes a bit with the "not all are atheists" assertion unless you go into semantics:

Evolution makes religious claims on the basis of a presumed flow of history. It is a religious system which is against Christ and His church. One system of faith denies the other.

You apparently can't be a Christian and support evolution since evolution is against Christ.

On a more technical level, the "Many [...] have been known to be atheists" is VERY relative once you look a little beyond the US borders and treat "hold to the theory of evolution" as "thinks that it's the best explanation right now". Creationism isn't exactly a majority view outside the US (Christian Creationism even less), but tons of people outside the US are Christians. Yes, it's not WRONG (since still "many" are atheists), but it's quite misleading. --Sid 3050 16:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

CreationWiki

This "article" is getting better, but I still have to scorn citations to CreationWiki :-P -AmesG 21:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I actually only have one real reference to them, the rest are just external links. I also have EvoWiki in there now. --Ymmotrojam 21:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Delete all Wiki links. Other Wikis are not sources.-AmesG 21:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't mind taking the one reference out, but the external links stay. External links technically don't reference any quotes and such in the article. Even so, I've already pointed out that CreationWiki is different than other wikis because it is a controlled environment. --Ymmotrojam 22:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)