That hardly sounds like a panel of objective experts...Palmd001 16:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
- Is it supposed to be? --Huey gunna getcha 16:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I have SERIOUS issues with the "anonymous members" bit. Members in this position should HAVE to be marked as such. --Sid 3050 16:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
- OOO, OOO, can I be a member? I'll be ever so good! I promise I won't let my high school studies, lack of life experience or religious brain washing get in the way of making good fair decisions! Pwetty Please? MatteeNeutra 16:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
It has already been set up as anonymous and it is unlikely to change. CPWebmaster 16:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
- So, a few anonymous Panel members could push their own point of view, and once it gets pushed back towards whatever passes as "neutrality" here, the Panel members could declare that this is a major conflict and should be handled... by the Panel. And nobody would of the conflict of interest. How convenient! --Sid 3050 16:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
- how do we know a panel even exists! This looks serious bent, like a banana republic wiki! --Cgday 18:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
- Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Myk 18:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
"We do not censor in any way"
It is a shame that many of your editors do not agree with that policy, see http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soccer&diff=56791&oldid=48604 for one incidence of very silly deletion. If you truly did not censor you would not keep closing the facility to create accounts.
- Well, to be fair, we are not allowed to copy from Wikipedia because (1) we do not follow the GFDL and (2) Andy made it a rule.
- However, there is censoring going on. Look at Conservative's edits that removed entire sections (with cites) simply because he didn't want his little propaganda piece to be cluttered with silly things like science. Or heck, look at some of the locked articles and their histories in general. --Sid 3050 19:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
- How do we know that these panel members are up to date on the "major conflicts" they recieve? Do they actively edit here and follow the ongoing debates? What's to stop them from becoming another user:conservative or user:scorpion? And they should definitely not be anonymous. It's easy to hide behind anonymimity (sp, too lazy to look it up for real), but it takes a real man (or woman) to stand up and declare "I did it." Jrssr5 19:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Rob PommerTALK is NOT a member of The Panel and no-one should contact Rob PommerTALK on his talk page or via email regarding ANY decisions that may come up for review by The Panel. Besides, bribery is unethical. Rob PommerTALK 18:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- I think having the homeschoolers form the panel is a wonderful idea. Harken the words of our Lord and savior himself:
- "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14)
- "Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs." (Mark 7:27)
- JC 09:03, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Why Conservapedia need to include the "mainstream" view of evolution... somewhere.
It is often possible to agree on "facts about opinions." For example:
- regardless of whether the phlogiston theory is or is not true, it is a fact that it was the dominant scientific theory of combustion from about 1718, when Stahl developed it, until 1777, when Lavoisier published "Sur la combustion en général."
- regardless of the medical effectiveness of bleeding, it is a fact that at the time of George Washington's final illness it was the generally accepted medical treatment for many kinds of illness.
- regardless of whether or not the Apollo astronauts actually landed on the Moon, it is a fact that a large number of people—about 6% of the U. S. population, according to one poll—believe that the landing was a hoax or deception and that it never occurred... and it is also a fact that most Americans believe they really did land on the moon.
Now, with regard to the theory of evolution, there are a number of facts that we should be able to agree on, regardless of whether or not we agree with the theory of evolution. One of them is a fact about opinion: just as most scientists once believed in the phlogiston theory; just as most doctors once believed in bleeding as a treatment for illness; just as most Americans now believe that the Apollo astronauts really landed on the moon... the scientific mainstream of today believes in the theory of evolution.
- It is a fact that the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences can be taken to represent "mainstream scientific opinion" in the United States. It is a fact that the AAAS issued a 2002 statement opining that "The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry.... To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.... the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education."
- It is a fact that about 15% of the questions in the SAT II Biology test are on evolution and diversity, and the "correct" answers reflect the contemporary theory of evolution.
- It is a fact that the New Jersey core curriculum standards, on which the HSPA tests are based, assume a knowledge of the contemporary theory of evolution. It imposes specific goals: by grade 12, students are expected to "Explain that through evolution the Earth's present species developed from earlier distinctly different species" and "Explain how the theory of natural selection accounts for extinction as well as an increase in the proportion of individuals with advantageous characteristics within a species."
Conservapedia can qualify what is said about evolution. Conservapedia can make sure that points of view that are unrepresented or underrepresented elsewhere are given a fair, even a preferential presentation.
But if Conservapedia is going to fulfill the goal of being a "trustworthy" educational research, it needs to present the mainstream opinions on evolution as well as unorthodox opinions. And it needs to present the mainstream opinions so clearly, fairly and accurately that a reader can understand them... and, in particular, a student understand them well enough to know which are intended to be the "correct" answers on examinations that are advised for college applicants and that increasingly are required for high school graduation.
I'd add that what imprisons a mind is the notion that, literally, "everyone else believes it." (Orwell: "Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one.") To liberate it, it is sufficient to make it clear that "not everyone else believes it." It's not necessary to go to the opposite extreme. Dpbsmith 21:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- I would endorse this view, Dpbsmith. In order to understand the theory itself and it's criticism, people need to be presented with an actual view of what the theory of evolution actually states, and draw their own conclusions (though most will probably come here with preconcieved notions). My $0.02. --Hojimachongtalk 21:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- "Myself when young did eagerly frequent
- Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
- About it and about: but evermore
- Came out by the same Door as in I went."—The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam Dpbsmith 22:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
I entered a submission to the panel. I linked to this argument, AmesG's petition, and Hoji's alternative language. The ball needed to start rolling on this. Feel free to add to the petition Conservapedia:Panel/SubmitMyk 22:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Could you please explain the reasoning behind your recent bizarre decision on the Theory of evolution page? --Horace 20:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Could the panel please adjudicate on the dispute that is currently taking place on the donut page?
The various factions cannot seem to agree on whether donuts need holes in order to qualify as donuts. For myself I have doubts about whether there is such a thing as an elongated donut (although I have been told that a "maple bar" qualifies).
We would appreciate your guidance on this one. --Horace 23:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Evolution page: proposal for new section: The Psychological Appeal of Progressive Biological Evolution
Here is my own text of my proposed new section:
Many notable atheists assert that a belief in God originated as an irrational answer against the knowledge of one’s own death which it might seem that humans alone possess, as witnessed by humans’ greatly advanced, and otherwise peculiarly strenuous, efforts to avoid their own deaths. But, the theory of progressive biological evolution, and its blood-brother abiogenesis, is as deeply seated in the psyche of fallen humans as anything can be.
Throughout human history, some of the more “empirically grounded” individuals and communities have argued that it is as much as logically impossible for a man long-dead to be raised from his deathly dust and rot, (since such miracles are contrary to the observed laws of biology and physics). But, in recent times, that very view of logic, and of life and death, has lead exactly to the conviction that life is such a thing as not only to have originated purely from dust, and purely by the power of dust, but that, with enough mastery of physics, a sufficiently progressed form of life can create any life anew, if not also make its own life more gloriously capable than itself already is.
Humans' worship of the power of technology, and of its underlying science, is shown everywhere in science fiction, such that contact with extraterrestrial life typically is imagined as a pretext for access to a gloriously far-advanced technology. The theory of progressive evolution is naturally most appealing to this part of the human psyche, by allowing the presupposition of a human progress toward the satisfaction of all points both of human need and of fallen human desire: eternal life, and an essentially consequence-free lifestyle.
(I supposed various other subsections could be added to this proposed new section, such as "The Paternal history of the most notable strident atheists".)
One more thing: given my points above, consisting of my text for the proposed new section, I think the beginning of the article, as it currently appears...
"The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth..."
might be better as...
"The theory of evolution is a progressive naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth..." PatternOfPersona 01:04, 2 July 2011 (EDT)