Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive A

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Here is what Mr. Schlafly wrote so stop having the competing article entries

Here is what Mr. Schafly wrote regarding competing entries for "evolution": "Having competing entries seems like a bad precedent to me. If someone creates an entry called "Richard Nixon", then can someone else create an entry called "The Real Richard Nixon"? Real encyclopedias would not have competing entries, so we shouldn't either."--Aschlafly 22:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)[1] Conservative 13:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

How you two can override a system-wide consensus boggles my mind.-AmesG 14:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps you can link to our article - scientific theory of evolution from yours. Yours remains incredibly biased, and still, in my opinion, a little structurally and factually poor.-AmesG 14:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

there are two definitions of "evolution". This can't be said about Richard Nixon.

  • Definition A: "Evolution" refers to the actual observed phenomenon in laboratories. This is a fact that can be supported by qualitative and quantitative data. This is microevolution.
  • Definition B: "Evolution" is used as shorthand for "evolutionary theory", that is, Darwinism (macroevolution).

There are two definitions, and obviously merit two articles. --Hojimachongtalk 18:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

We have a microevolution article. Conservative 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
As if that's enough. Macroevolution is also scientifically proven, unless you can adduce evidence to the contrary. Oh, and don't cite AnswersInGenesis. PLEASE.-AmesG 20:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
A "real encyclopedia" wouldn't have an article anything like the current "theory of evolution" article, so I don't know how that could be used as an argument. The site currently doesn't have an article on the theory of evolution. It has "Conservative's rant against evolution". --JamesK 20:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
If Conservative feels the Answers in Genesis is an appropriate source to cite, than I'm sure he'll have no trouble with me citing the valid claims from Talk Origins, will he? --Hojimachongtalk 20:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
There was no ranting in the article. I very much took a encyclopedic tone. No vitriole in the article. Conservative 20:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I'm sure you meant "vitriol." But, your encyclopedic tone is hurt by blatant quote mining and disregard for the constraints of intellectual honesty in (1) producing both sides of an issue and (2) calling a spade a spade, by which I mean, not calling creation scientists scientists. -AmesG 20:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Please make this a disambiguation page

When people speak of "evolution" they are usually talking about "biological evolution" or the Theory of Evolution, but they may also be talking about:

  • "chemical evolution", aka abiogenesis
  • "cosmological evolution" or "cosmic evolution", which is pretty much everything from the Big Bang up to the formation of life.

-- Limulus 18:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


Actually, the whole thing should be deleted and given a do-over.--PalMDtalk 18:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

This is just about "Evolution", not "Theory of Evolution" (right now, one redirects to the other). While I agree about ToE, it's not really the focus of the request (I think). --Sid 3050 18:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
You are correct; "Evolution" currently redirects to "Theory of Evolution", but based on the comments in the latter's talk page, people may actually be looking for other things... -- Limulus 18:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, Microevolution and Macroevolution, as per links in the previous section. -- Limulus 23:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Statement of Purpose

To administrators: this article is an attempt to promote science and creation science equally in furtherance of Conservapedia's goal to eliminate bias. I would appreciate it if this page remained safe and viewable to curious readers.

As appropriate, I present "creation" science first on the disambiguation page.

Also, I realize that I am a pariah to a lot of the admins on this site. But I honestly believe that this will help the site, and help its viewers. Please debate it rather than destroy it.-AmesG 00:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Well done. This really is a good start at an even-handed compromise between the opposing views. I am still concerned that the "Theory of evolution" page is misleadingly named. But, baby steps I suppose. --Horace 00:40, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm worried. If this compromise holds, I might run out of things to complain about on this website!! -AmesG 00:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Good effort! Would that such efforts at even-handedness applied throughout Conservapedia! Until they do, its reputation will be mud. But I'm not optimistic, I'm afraid. Don't we need an article simply on 'Evolution'? Even the Catholic Encyclopedia manages that! --Petrus 07:19, 22 March 2007 (EDT)