Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory

2007-08-08T15:43:44Z

Dimensio:

This article was just a pile of falsehoods before the last two edits. I've added references to put paid to the arguments presented (common descent is not 'asummed' by scientists) and deleted the bit about unguided/guided evolution which doesn't relate to the topic on this page (add it to the appropriate page if you think conservapedia really needs it) --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 20:38, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

If you would like to improve it try to adopt a more nuteral tone. I realize that there is not a particularly nuteral tone at the moment, but please if you are going to change try to lessen the bias instead of just changing the direction thereof. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 20:49, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the earlier article contains statemetents that are false (breaking the 1st commandment). This article is referenced and based on reality. If people want to edit it they can but surely a well referenced article dealing with these claims is better than one which is simply wrong --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 21:31, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
::You must be new here, or you'd know that Reality has an obviously Liberal bias, which is why nobody here relies on it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 21:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

This article would probably be better off in the essay section of Conservapedia. --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 21:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:The title would certainly fit better with it being an essay, but perhaps something can be salvaged from it. Igor nz's bit about AiG's view is valid, but apart from that I'm not sure that his version is much better than the original. I'll try to remember to come back and have a go at it myself sometime. I've already written some stuff (not in article space) about evolution not being falsifiable, which may be able to go in here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:37, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling and Grammar - Signs of Quality Home-Schooling ==

Ummmmm...should that not read "Evolution is an UNPROVEN theory?" [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 00:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Mischaracterization of source ==

I removed the a statement ("and in fact Popper himself asserted that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis") and its source (Popper, K (1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica (32).) because it is apparantly an inaccurate representation of the source. Specifically, according to this [http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/popperevolution.htm site], Popper stated: "The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established." Also, in 1980, Popper hedged in his letter to New Scientist. The assertion that Popper deemed "evolution a falsifiable hypopthesis" is not backed up by Popper's 1980 works, as well as respected authors like Numbers. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 01:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I don't really care to much now the inane link from the front page of the evolution page is gone but Popper (1978) does say that particular parts of evolutionary theory are falsifiable (which is whats at question, not whether neo-darwinism completely explains evolution which your quote is about). To my mind the interesting bit is evolution is such a broad theory that finding an individual observation that would bring it all down is hard (in fact the sorts of observations that would are going against things that are just taken as facts; some organisms have more offspring that others, there is some mode of inheritence of traits from parent to offspring...). Instead lots of little hypotheses can be proposed and tested for different parts of the theory. We couldn't deal with those sorts of ideas here without introducing Lakatos' and Kuhne's philosophies of science and that becomes a very big task. --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 20:13, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::He also says that in the 1980 work. However, asserting that parts are falsifiable and asserting "that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis" are two different things. I have not read the 1978 work though. If you have, and you were the person who added the statement "and in fact Popper himself asserted that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis", I strongly encourage you to accurately summarize sources. I assume that '''whomever''' added this statement did so in haste, and I encourage that person to take more time in making contributions to hot-button articles. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 22:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Do we need this article ==

Simple question, does this article have any reason to exist? If it is really going to be about the title then all it needs is a description of why calling a 'theory' 'unproved' betrays a lack of understanding of either word in scientific discourse (which AiG attests to).

If we want a big piece on falsification and whether evolutionary theory is falsifiable then it shouldn't be on this page (it should probably be on the main evolution page but us plebs can't edit that one). Thoughts? --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 21:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the article is salvagable. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 22:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question about an edit Igor nz made ==

I do want to point out that this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Evolution_is_an_unproved_theory&diff=170545&oldid=168263 edit] introduced this sentence:

{{cquote|In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <nowiki><ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref></nowiki>"}}

Several problems with this particular sentence:
:1. Have you read this article? Is it fairly characterized? I do not think so. <nowiki>[In the interest of disclosure, I have very good reason to believe that the article actually states: "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."</nowiki> p. 23

So, my question is, have you read the article in question? No, don't answer if you don't want to. I don't want to make allegations that push you into a corner. In the interest of intellectual honesty, it would be good to have an evolutionist (read: Somebody who supports the "scientific theory of evolution") help make such conservapedia articles better. But based on the information I have regarding the Newsweek article, your summary of it was less than accurate, and exaggerated, and leads me to suspect you may have simply cut and paste it from an evolutionist website. Again, please don't take this suspicion as an attack against you personally. Rather, either just deny it, or, if true, let's not let it happen again. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 22:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ed, thisi was a mistake, IMO ==

No? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Can someone name a "proved" theory? ==

If so, please do so. State the name of the "proven" theory, state what observations this theory explains, state the mechanisms that this theory claims to be responsible for the observations and cite the relevant "proof". --[[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:43, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cladistics

2007-08-08T15:42:08Z

Dimensio:

We can't refer to "the evolutionary relationships" without indirectly asserting that living things evolved. Since there is no proof of that, we should be clear that [[evolution is an unproved theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:49, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:All theories are unproven and unprovable. Singling out evolution as an "unproven theory" suggests that you are dishonestly trying to imply that it is somehow on less solid footing than any other scientific theory. --[[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:42, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-08-08T15:38:50Z

Dimensio: /* Big Bang proves Universe had a beginning */

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
:Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Please update the article to include peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of Big Bang-like theories. Right now the article looks ridiculous: a half of a dozen scientific references followed by a bunch of references dominated by the Apologetic Press. Clearly somebody misunderstands the modern scientific process.

== Dominant theory ==

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:No, I agree, it is the dominant theory among scientists. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 05:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweeping generalisation ==

The following sentence should be removed:

:In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article split==

The intro confuses [[Big Bang]] with [[Expanding universe]]. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have the bounds of [[outer space]] expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --[[User:M|M]] 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is [[outer space]] infinite or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, [[outer space]] is infinite.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--[[User:M|M]] 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a split is neccesary, however, on a related note, an article describing the Big Freeze, Big Rip, and Big Crunch theories for the end of the universe might be called for, as those also center on the way in which the universe is expanding (specifically, from measurements of type 1 supernovae in extremely distant galaxies, we have evidence that the universe's expansion is in fact, speeding up, giving support to the Big Freeze (everything expands until entropy is at a maximum), or possibly Big Rip (if Dark Energy is the cause of expansion, then if the universe keeps expanding, dark energy could start to rip apart galaxies, then solar systems, then stars and planets, and finally atoms). So yeah, an article on the possible ways the universe will 'end' (or if it is infinite) would probably help provide more information about the nature of the expanding universe, without having to create an article solely about the expansion of the universe. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 14:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== YEC Citations ==

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each other...compare:
<blockquote>
A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30)
</blockquote>

with

<blockquote>
All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.
</blockquote>

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?

:::Is it standard procedure to give me two citations without giving me the specific cite to the second citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I found the second citation and it appears to use the following to support its contention: “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html][http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes55.html#wp1077943] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It's a good thing Tom Van Flandern didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. I'll believe your numbers, but current data indicates that BOTH were wrong. Redoing a computation of the ambient temperature of the Universe (given modern observations) will ''not'' yield Eddington's prediction; reworking Gamow's calculation ''will'' reproduce the CMB temperature very accurately. Additionally, the CMB data is more than just temperature data; the anisotropies in the CMB are also indicative of the premordial expansion. Just because you can dig up a citation doesn't mean it's correct.

== Common Misconceptions ==

As previously written, this was untrue. The Big Bang does not claim that all matter was tightly packed together before the Big Bang started. That is an assumption that the Big Bang does not address. It is unfortunate that in a section titled common misconceptions that a misconception was added. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:08, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Misconception about Evolution==
I think evolution discredits itself. But I think it is unfortunate when us anti-evolutionist mistrepresent the theory. It is discreditable on many points, but this sentence mistrepresents it:

:''Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are Evolutionists, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang. ''

Evolution does not say life evolved randomly. It says the intitial organism came about through essentially "random" events. (although not strictly random).

Evolution is wrong for other reasons. And if we are going to make evolutionists see its falsity, we have to correctly represent the theory. Or atleast not MISREPRESENT the theory. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 00:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree and I'm glad that the article at least makes that distinction, although as an a Creationist who believes the Big Bang is one of the strongest theistic arguments out there, I'm not incredibly happy about Evolution being mentioned in there; one has nothing to do with the other. However, I won't press the issue because I think what's there is a reasonable compromise. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Big Bang proves Universe had a beginning==
Why are so many creationists against the big bang, it proves that the universe had a beginning point. It also seems to violate physics because matter can't be created from nothing. It indicates a creative force behind the universe.

:Well, for one thing the "billions of years" makes it just laughable, but more importantly it goes against the Bible which says God created the Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago. --[[User:Rolloffle|Rolloffle]] 15:43, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::Where, exactly, is the age of the Earth specified as being 6000 years in the Bible. Please reference the relevant chapters and verses. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:38, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Creation science

2007-04-08T17:01:35Z

Dimensio:

{{merge|Creation Science}}

'''Creation science''' is an effort to show that scientific evidence is consistent with the account of Creation in the Bible - usually with a literal six-day-creation interpretation - and not with the [[Theory of evolution|theory of evolution]]. Creation science is not accepted by most scientists. However, this could be due partly to the religious views of the scientists, rather than scientific evidences{{fact}}. A poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.[http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html] In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html]

This is clear evidence of the way the educational system is biased against the teaching of Christianity.{{fact}}

Talk:Intelligent design

2007-04-04T16:01:52Z

Dimensio: /* The Theory of Intelligent Design */

{{protect|CPWebmaster}}

== Arguments ==

Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== General ==

To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.

On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?

On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.

On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.

On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.

Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.

Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)

If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)

I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "notable"? ==

There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==two issues==

Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==

I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]

:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's not even a hypothesis. It's conjecture. It's a vague assertion inserted in a gap of understanding. It claims that a common ancestor species led to all extant life through the process of evolution, but at certian key points a "designer" of unspecified nature and origin used unspecified methods to "design" biological features on populations of divergent organisms that could not otherwise have emerged. It offers no actual mechanism (to qualify even as a hypothesis it must state exactly how the 'design' was implemented into a feature, not merely that a feature was 'designed'), it merely asserts that an unspecified mechanism had "design" intent behind it solely upon the basis of some people being unable to think of any means by which those aforementioned features could have emerged. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== BCE ==

how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou

== Other Intelligent Causes ==

In the statement:

"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."

There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?

: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)

::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit

::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March

::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative's "factual error" ==

Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)

ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== what is wrong with this sentence? ==

Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]

LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]

:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this? ==

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''personal remark removed'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== Impact Factor ==

:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]

:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==

Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationists==

::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Without Merit==

Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Well's Centrioles paper==

Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==

[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.

The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==

This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Kitzmiller trap. ==

The first paragrah used to say:

''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''

Now it says:

''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''

This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)

The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.

Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.

Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)

So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March

:The debate is between
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it

:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)

:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''

::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]].

:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.

It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.

::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."

::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.

It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.

:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?

:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious.

::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.

::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.

::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.

::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.

::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.

::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March

:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April

==Non-biological Intelligent Design==
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?

==Objections to ID==

Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php]

A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer

[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]].
----
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory.

:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.

::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==

I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches?

::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::For me, that's the fundamental problem with ID: Who is the Intelligent Designer? It seems that it still requires a leap of faith and a belief in a higher power. Which, to me, is indistinguishable from religion. I should probably stop now, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else away from ID. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Here, Hear==
I hope it's not a waste of bandwidth, but I just want to praise the format of this [[Intelligent_Design|article]]. I have no idea if the content is any good or not, but this should be a template for all controversial subjects. I bashed my brains out at Wikipedia arguing --- not for or against Intelligent Design --- but for something resembling readable and fair. I can't shower you with enough praise for taking this simple and adult stance. I doesn't matter if Intelligent Design is baloney or not. (Let the reader make up his own mind ... because he already has made it up anyway.)

State the premise. Seperate the discourse into pro's and con's and move on. No more tears. Perfect. Thank you for drawing breath. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Eugenics

2007-04-03T20:00:23Z

Dimensio: /* Has the author even studied the history of eugenics? */

Crimeney, you've got it all wrong again...I'll try to clean up the science part without disturbing your point, if you dont mind.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 00:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, Dawkin's letter shows NO approval for eugenics, just the opposite. Careful with the quote mining. Im not saying that no one in the world is a eugenecist, but chose the right ones.
Singer is interesting...he makes ethical arguments about the sanctity of life, and creats a spectrum of sanctity. His ideas can be offensive, but he clearly states that killing is bad, just some killing is bad in different ways. He does not, as far as I can tell, speak of eugenics at all. You might consider leaving him out and finding a better example.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 00:59, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'd like to add what Crichton said about eugenics - which was censored from a Wikipedia article on the grounds of "Who's he? What does he know? He's only a novelist!" (paraphrased, obviously) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to see what he had to say. It might be interesting.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, first read what he had to say at [[talk:Politicized Science]]. It's rather shocking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to say that Eugenics, in the original 19th and 20th state, is pretty much gone. The modern war over eugenics will come in the fertility industry, selecting embryos with certain characteristics. This isn't, strictly speaking, eugenics, as eugenics was based on the scientifically invalid idea that you can breed certain characteristics in or out of the human population. This turned out to be way too simplistic (in addition to being evil). Feel free to contact me to discuss it more.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not all proponents of eugenics were for forced sterilization of immigrants and minorities. Selective breeding yes, but this was to improve the overall gene pool (get rid of retardation, disease, whatever) of all races, not to eliminate minorities. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Has the author even studied the history of eugenics?==

The article suggests that the practice of eugenics is directly tied to the theory of evolution. Is/are the author(s) totally unaware that Plato advocated a eugenics practice to better society, and that the Spartans effectively engaged in the practice by leaving newborn infants perceived as "weak" to die, or is the omission of this information a deliberate attempt to dishonestly claim that eugenics did not exist until Darwin's time? I also note that the article suggests that Darwin himself supported the idea, even though he specifically called the practice of neglecting those who he called "weak and helpless" an "overwhelming evil" that should be avoided even if the consequences of allowing them to continue to reproduce might harm society. I guess that facts didn't suit the agenda of whomever wrote this article, so they were omitted. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 15:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Eugenics

2007-04-03T18:09:04Z

Dimensio: /* Has the author even studied the history of eugenics? */

Talk:Eugenics

2007-04-03T18:05:03Z

Dimensio:

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-04-03T17:54:30Z

Dimensio:

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-04-03T15:23:00Z

Dimensio:

Talk:Theory

2007-04-03T13:38:18Z

Dimensio: /* Where the controversy is - and what it's about */

This definition isn't consistent with other usage here, since other pages refer to the "Theory of Evolution" for example. Or look at [[Global warming]] which talks about "The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature". But the definition of "Theory" here is "A hypothesis that has been tested with a significant amount of data,[1] for which a sufficient amount of evidence (and a lack of disconfirming evidence) has been found that it would be perverse to withhold assent." So to call global warming a "theory" in this sense would be to say that it would be perverse not to agree! Something wrong here .... [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:14, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== How can one state that evolution is a good theory on a website that accepts bibilican creation as fact? ==

This very website has been popularly quoted because it accepts the true, Biblical origin of species on this planet. If this really is a conservative knowledgebase, is it not reasonable to present the conservative view on a subject, given that there are many reputable conservative creation scientists that agree with my work as I presented it? My edit should be reinstated, in line with the philosophy of this website.--[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 21:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Now, now, play nice, [[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] and [[User:ColinR|ColinR]].
::::: [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was not a comment meant in spite. The common belief amongst Christian scientists is that Evolution is a poor theory based on misinformation and assumption. There are many reputable Christian scientists who will agree. Since this is a conservative website, I figured the general consensus of conservative scientists would be appropriate, especially since this is how facts are represented elsewhere in this website. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps you should reference these "conservative scientists", and be sure that their degrees are in a relevant field of science (for example, a professor of physics is not a credible source on the subject of the theory of evolution). Merely asserting that "evolution is a poor theory based on misinformation and assumption" does not make it true, and asserting that such a view is held by "the general consensus of conservative scientists" does not make that claim factual either. As it is, getting information about the theory of evolution from Conservapedia is like getting information about responsible firearms usage from Gunguys.com. You are offering uninformed and demonstratably biased assertions as fact. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 12:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is the accepted theory in the scientific community because it is a falsifiable theory. Something Creationism is not. Moreover, it is as valid as any other currently accepted scientific theory. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 22:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is a valid theory, and I know this. It is not a good theory though. I give it as an example of a theory that does not have a good solid base of fact into which it can support itself. The theory of the flying spaghetti monster is a valid theory also. it's just not a very good one. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Sources needed==
This article gives a definition of "theory" that differs sharply from common dictionaries, popular usage, and the rest of Conservapedia. Just one dubious reference is provided. If this is really a good definition, then there should be some citations to people who use the word this way. Otherwise, the article should be scrapped and rewritten to conform to common usage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Now the article cites Wikipedia 3 times! It really needs an overhaul. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:How is that any different than citing Creationwiki that many or even more times? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 19:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Citing Creationwiki is worthless, except maybe for a sample of what creationists believe. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

"Why are scientists pushy about their theories (opinions)."
So hilariously bad, that it must be vandalism. Oh, and you forgot a question mark.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, vandalism, or some sort of joke. "Everyone had a thermometer that measured differently, which is why we have two temperature scales; fahrenheit and celcius." Ha ha. Please revert. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Theory v hunch ==
This article is still in bad shape. It is not true that there is any big difference between scientific and non-scientific usage of the word "theory". Scientists use the word to describe a hunch as much as non-scientists do. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

That's not necessarily true. Scientific "hunches" are known as hypotheses, and most hypotheses are disproved. Theories have corroborating evidence to suggest that they are accurate. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: No, you are not correct. If you were, then give me some citation backing you up. Show me some scientific paper that says, "That hypothesis might be good enough to be called a theory according to the layman's use of the word, it has not been proved accurate enough to be called a scientific theory." It doesn't happen. There are theories like String Theory that have not been confirmed at all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Actually [[RSchlafly]] the statement preceding yours is correct. Your demand regarding a scientific paper makes no sense; why would a scientist writing for an audience of other scientists ever make the statement you require? Next, the National Academy of Sciences, which has reasonable jurisdiction over basic scientific terminology, defines a theory as, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." In other words, not a "hunch." String Theory moreover doesn't really apply, since many physicists such as Carlo Rovelli and Philip Anderson contest the validity of calling String Theory a theory at all. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I accept the NAS definition, but where is the proof that scientists use the term "theory" differently from others? They don't. A lot of physicists use the term "String Theory", if not all. Are you saying that they are wrong? Does the NAS say that they are wrong? The article promotes a phony distinction that is not recognized by the vast majority of scientists. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory v Scientific Theory==

The [[Theory]] page seems to overlap with [[Scientific theory]] at least in intent, but the former takes a very different position on what the word "theory" means. In fact, it takes a position that makes other uses of the word here problematic. I made a note about that on [[Talk:Theory]]. Perhaps Theory could just redirect to this one? And it would be nice to see something here about how personal bias can lead to the word "theory" being attached to something that isn't really a theory at all (not falsifiable, for example, or having many inconsistencies that are overlooked because they contradict personal bias). Just because the word "theory" gets attached to something in common usage doesn't make it a theory. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 14:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Scrap the other page. It just adds to the confusion. Make it redirect here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I propose replacing the definition in this article with one that conforms more closely to dictionaries and common usage. I suggest:
: A Scientific Theory is a model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. A theory is a plausible or consistent explanation; it becomes scientific when it is subjected to empirical scrutiny. A Scientific Theory must be falsifiable, meaning that there must be some way to do observations that might disprove the theory.
: A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or wildly speculative, such as String Theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::That sounds pretty good, I'm all for it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking and reverting ==

Why is my version of the article being reverted? I see no fault in it. If you wish to block it, I request that you please give reason.

'''Reason''': Because you are a mindless liberal vandal. Oooooooo. Anything else? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Reorganization ==

I broke the existing entry into two paragraphs, and added mention of Scientific Laws. Sources still need to be cited (specifically for the first statement. Would the person who wrote the original article cite that?). [[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (CST)

==Merged articles==
I merged Theory with Scientific Theory, and rewrote. There was a lot of overlap and inconsistency. I tried to make it conform to dictionary and common usage of the term. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:46, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==String theory==
I am not sure about the point to this sentence: "However some scientists want the name of the idea String Theory to be changed as it does not fit with the scientific meaning of the word." [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825285.400-mind-your-scientific-language.html NewScientist] The reference just has one string theory critic (Krauss) who has used the term "string theory" in the past and now wants to change common terminology in order to further some evolutionist goal.

I was considering adding a paragraph on how evolution proselytizers are trying to promote a definition of "theory" that differs from common usage, but has not yet caught on. Krauss would be an example. In the current version of the article, I was just trying to describe how the term is used, not how it ought to be used. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:04, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I am also wondering about Letusratiocinate's comment, "Opinions and conjectures, not supported by definitions, shared understanding or usage". I tried to be consistent with dictionary definitions, such as [http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=theory], and with common usage. I can find citations as requested, but it would help if someone would explain here what is doubtful and need documentation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== RSchlafly ==

Your edits were the height of inanity. Saying, "some people say this, but only because they're evolutionists," whatever that means, is asinine. It's an argument that contains its own refutation, and is thoroughly un-encyclopedic, uninformative, and worthless.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: I described a distinction that evolutionists make. Are you saying that the distinction does not exist? That it is not noteworthy? Or what? Please explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:: You described a distinction and said that it's invalid because only "scientists" support it, who can't be trusted because they're scientists. If you don't see something wrong in that sentence, then you may be a lost cause. Setting that aside, isn't it true that we should care about what scientists mean when they say "theory" if they're the ones drafting the theory in the first place? Shouldn't we NOT care what random-guy-on-the-street things that "scientific theory" means?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: No, that is not what I said at all. I did not say that the distinction is invalid, and I didn't say that scientists can't be trusted. Yes, I do see something wrong with your sentence -- it is directly contrary to what I said! If you care so much about what those scientists are saying, then why did you delete the section? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Your treatment of it implied that it was only the "evolutionists" (a false term to begin with) support the view that scientific theories are stronger entities than theories in modern parlance, which is wrong.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: So prove me prove. Find a non-evolutionist who makes the distinction I cited. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Any scientist! Find one who doesn't (and who's not a creation "scientist")! -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: Just give me the URL. Otherwise, I'll put the section back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:17, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, it's hard to find a real scientist who doesn't believe in evolution. Can you find a legit scientist who does NOT make the distinction? I think you should have the burden here. '''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

[http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html Done.]-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: That is a web site promoting evolution to the general public. I agree that sites like that sometimes make the distinction. You make my point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:: No, we've been through this before. Read up on the scientific method if you are confused, because theories must be formed using the scientific method. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Hoji.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Would the [http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html Encyclopedia of Philosophy] be of any help? [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/ Laws of nature] might be of use. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== My two cents ==

I couldn't stay away, so here it is. <s>Not meant pejoritively, the level of scientific education is not as high here as on WP, so</s> I think this article will need some revision. Since no one has really come out and said it, this article is important not just for the info in it, but also because the definition somehow has become semantically linked to the evolution controversy. To make this an accurate entry, I propose that '''origin theories not be used as examples.'''

That being said, if we are not going to have a separate article on scientific method, then this one needs to clarify theory and hypothesis. It probably should also digress a little into Popper and Kuhn, unfortunately.

Comments?--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I am about to post a revision. People here are advocating that the distinction between scientific and common usage be added, so I am doing that. I am trying to be accurate on who makes the distinction, and what the distinction is.
: I am not sure that Popper and Kuhn have much to do with the definition of a theory. They do relate to how theories get accepted and rejected. Maybe they belong in that Scientific Method article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:57, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Avoiding the philosophers here would be helpful, certainly. I really think that we need to leave out the current examples in your revision. I don't really want to do the editing personally because i hate edit wars, but I'd love to comment on it here, and post edits with consensus. Thanks --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Rog, any chance we can take out the text on Evo and just link to it to avoid politics and confusion?--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, that last edit about the common understanding of theory is just wrong, but it IS a matter of opinion, so there is certainly room for disagreement. However, it is OPINION, and should have no place here. That is why I think we should dispense with the examples. There is no need to have our opinions compete here...it's the wrong forum for that.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:22, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I took out this:
: The [[Theory of Evolution]] includes [[microevolution]] (change in allele frequency over time), which is well-confirmed, and the idea that there existed a universal common ancestor for all life on Earth, which remains controversial. {{fact}}

I am not sure what the problem is. Doesn't everyone agree that microevolution is well-confirmed? Hardly anyone claims that the universal common ancestor is a proved fact. Likely hypothesis maybe, but not well-confirmed. When the pro-evolution people say that evolution is a fact, they are talking about microevolution, not the existence of a universal common ancestor.

Where is the opinion? I am just describing definitions as they are used, not how I think the word should be defined. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:32, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I actually agree with you, mostly. I dont want to get into the single common ancestor discussion, but most scientists subscribe to some version of Evo in its entirety. That being said, I think that it is just inflammatory to use Evo or ID here as examples. I think if we need examples we could perhaps chose something less heated. The edit war would end, and references to other CP articles could be include.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: Agreed with Palmd. Thanks for playing nicely R.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:30, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I had to edit out that last little editorial sentence, which was an interpretation of a newspaper article. Didn't seem real well supported.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:32, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I also edited out "Evolutionists claim," for a lot of reasons. First, "evolutionists claim" is YEC weasel wording that is meaningless. The scientific usage of the term is defined by scientists, and it is defined as quoted below, end of story.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:: You have made it incorrect. Scientists don't make that claim in a scientific context; only evolutionists do when promoting evolution. I have given references for it. Please dispute it on the Talk page before you make these changes. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

In re your last edit: theory is also used to describe systems of thought that are extinct. Ether theory is still ether theory, it just isn't considered a valid theory anymore. Difficult linguistic problem.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I guess Im not sure what you mean, Rog. So-called evolutionists do not use the word theory any differently than any other scientists, and don't claim any different uses in different contexts. Your citation was your interpretation of a single newspaper article. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:21, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I think that they do. Those promoting evolution describe a distinction that others do not recognize. I cited evidence. If something I said was wrong, then show me some evidence that I am wrong. Otherwise I will revert to my version.
: Also, AmesG asks, "ether theory was discounted years ago; why cite it, I wonder?" The answer is that it was cited as a theory that lacked evidence. Whether it is currently discounted is beside the point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

My point, sir, is that your citation wasn't evidence by any reasonable standard. Quote mining some random newspaper article is not useful. I can tell you from a scientists perspective (not using this as a citation obviously because it is a personal observation) that this point is absolutely obvious to most working scientists. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree that the point is completely obvious, but please spell it out. Exactly where am I wrong, and can you cite any evidence? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Letusratiocinate entered some more dubious edits. He says a theory "might not yet be well verified". This is misleading, as it might never be well verified. He says "It is wise ...". Says who? This is just opinion. He says "before the theories become well confirmed". Again, they may never be confirmed. I see no merit to these edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, citing PBS shows and newspapers does not add to the legitimacy of the article. We should probably use more formal sources. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 12:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm reminded of the last line from the incredibly bad movie '''''Plan Nine from Outer Space''''' Which was "'''Can you prove it didn't happen?'''"
::The answer, of course is '''No'''. Just as one cannot prove that Iraq's massive stockpiles of [[WMD]]'s weren't smuggled out of the country to Syria and Jordan. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 13:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Im not so sure the whole "common usage" section belongs at all, but does anyone think we should get rid of the not-too-clear examples that quote, of all things, TV shows?--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I restored a previous version that makes it more clear as to why it is there. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:04, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Definitions==
From various sources:

(Math) '''Theorem: a statement that has been proven.'''[http://users.erols.com/bram/Tdictionary.html]

(General) '''Theory: A reasoned explanation of known facts or phenomena that serves as a basis of investigation by which to seek the truth.'''[http://www.pharma-lexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=91206]

(General) '''Theory: A proposal for understanding the meaning of a term in relation to a set of scientifically useful hypotheses.'''[http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/t.htm#theoretical]
:::::--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 13:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow! This would simplify and clarify things a lot. I'd leave out theorem though because it is a significantly different concept.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Roger! This is an article about THEORY, not what YOU think Evolutionary scientists have to say about theory. The above should be sufficient, and you should remove the irrelevencies that you reinserted and that are poorly supported.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop yelling, we can hear you fine. You seem to be missing Roger's point (and it's my point too, if I may barge in).

:Supporters of the [[Theory of Evolution]] use the word ''theory'' in a particular way, by which they intend to make a distinction between a "fact" and a "theory".
:*Opponents: Evolution is only a theory.
:*Supporters: Evolution is a fact

:Sounds like two kids in the schoolyard: Is too! Is not!

:An adult would patiently explain what a theory is. Liberals, not being normal adults but nature-worshipping [[Druid]]s (as [[Ann Coulter]] so gently puts it), are not adults. The moment you contradict them they start screaming. One reason I suggest you tone it down is that grown-ups don't listen to little screaming kids. (No offense meant.)

:Now, I suggest you give up arguing with Mr. Schlafly for the moment, and try explaining his ideas back to him. As Covey says, Seek first to understand, then to be understood. You'll never win an argument while your debate partner feels you don't 'get' what he's saying. And the audience will yawn or change the channel. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, a reasonable suggestion. I think one of the fundamental probs here is that (speaking as a scientist, not as a liberal or conservative) there really is no controversy in science, evolutionary or otherwise, about this term. That is not to say that in certain circles (ID, etc) the problem hasn't come up, I just don't think this is the place to hash it out. Evolutionary "theory" is equivalent linguistically to Electromagnetic "theory", even though only one uses calculus. Both are useful, predictive, falsifiable, and malleable. Sometimes in casual conversation, one might say, "My theory behind their divorce is that he was fooling around." This is not the way it is used by any scientists. They would call that a hypothesis. I think we are making a debate where there should be none. The debate should be moved to one of the Creationism related articles where it is more relevant.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is not what I THINK at all. I search for definitions and usage of "theory", and I find two. One used by those promoting Evolution, and one used by everyone else. I originally wanted to just put in one definition, but people kept putting in the second.
:: I would be perfectly fine with Cracker's definition, if it is the only one given. But we would have to lock the page, and face steady complaints from people who want to see the other definition. Maybe the page will have to be locked anyway.
:: As I said, if I am wrong, it should be really easy to prove me wrong. If anyone has good examples, please post them to the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I pretty much agree with you their Rog.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Oh, snap! ==

I just realized: it's the same thing as the "documentary" dispute at Wikipedia's great global warming hoax (talk page).

One editor refused to let the film be called "a documentary" because '''to him''' that word implied that it was not only non-fiction (i.e., it wasn't a drama like Hamlet) - but that it was TRUE. He was okay with called [[An Inconvenient Truth]] a documentary, though.

Likewise, evolution supporters bristle (foam?) at the idea of equating "a theory" with anything other than '''it is true, we know it is, and stop questioning it you anti-scientific moron''' (or words to that effect).

Yet the word ''theory'' simply means "an explanation". Such explanations can be correct, incorrect, or somewhere in between (i.e., they can be "good enough" or "rules of thumb").

A "scientific theory", perhaps, is one which can be tested and verified (or [[falsification|falsified]]). Which reminds me, when educators teach students about evolution, what sorts of conclusions do they draw from it which (if not found) could prove evolution wrong?

Try this:
*If evolution is true, then we should see an example of natural selection in modern times.
*The [[peppered moth]] is an example of natural selection.
*If it turns out that no natural selection occurred in the case of the peppered moth, then (we are prepared to admit!) evolution is not true.

Do they dare to say this? Of course not. And they won't let any other conclusions be drawn from their hypothesis. Which is why opponents have branded evolution as [[pseudoscience]]. Pseudoscience, as I pointed out at Wikipedia, refuses to follow the 3nd & 4th steps of the four-part [[scientific method]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, we do see natural selection, antibiotic resistance in bacteria due to genetic mutation. HIV mutation to allow for resistance to binding protein blockers. Sickle cell anemia in locations of the world where malaria is prevalent. Vestigial structures in animals and plants. Should I go on? --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with PalMD the peppered moth is over blown just because there are so much more to support TOE than a study performed before DNA was understood.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:52, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

*''"Controversial film" would be fine, but adding "documentary" gives undue weight'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle&diff=117274115&oldid=117268479]

Actually, for evolution to be falsifiable (and it is) we must be able to posit a phenomenon that is not explainable by evolution. See my stegasaurus bone example. The peppered moth thing is only one small example, and if another explanation is found that is non-evolutionary, then it taps away at the base of the theory, but alone has not yet destroyed it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and for my fellow evolution-believing friends, the whole peppered moth thing might be a bit of an over-broad example. I personally would not use it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Where the controversy is - and what it's about ==

''there really is no controversy in science, evolutionary or otherwise, about this term''

This is a favorite line of liberals about science. Whether it's global warming, DDT, dioxins, secondhand smoke, or whatever, they always claim that '''scientists''' are not disputing the proposition. It's only you anti-scientific r's and c's.

I can't count how many fallacies are in this argument, but it starts with ''[[ad hominem]]'' of course. About on the level of, "Bush is an idiot."

More to the point, there is indeed a controversy in public discourse over what a theory is, and over whether evolution is a theory. There's also a controversy over whether the [[Theory of Evolution]] is correct. Supporters of [[Intelligent Design]], rare though they may be, have advanced at least one argument against "[[Evolution through natural selection]]". No encyclopedia would be complete without presenting their argument, which centers on [[Irreducible complexity]].

Now, I am not pressing any point. I'm certainly not arguing for or against either Evolution or ID on this page. I don't have time for that.

But I'm begging you all to be careful about how you use language. That's all. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, this has nothing to do with ad hominem statements. It really is true that in the vast majority of th scientific community, the definition of theory is not an issue. I am not saying that those who disagree are nut-jobs, just not part of the vast majority of the scientific community. Of course in American culture, there is a HUGE controvery about Evolution vs ID, etc. and in the discourse of the ID partisans, this whole theory definition is an issue. That's why I think the discussion belongs in the IDish articles, not in the definition of theory.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would agree. Ed, we understand that you are on neither side of the TOE and ID debate. However, you are feeding into the argument. There is a major difference between the two thoughts. ID has yet to undergo any scientific research so to list this in the theory article detracts from the main point, as it stands the "theory of ID" is not a theory, it has not been allowed to be tested due to a lack of fundamental definition of what constitutes intelligence and how it could influence diversity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, as you have generally been a fairly moderate voice of reason, perhaps you can mediate a bit. THe whole "evolutionists promote this idea, see this NYT article" should go, as well as the rest of the little debate, and moved elsewhere (not deleted from CP). We should go with the simple definitions above. IMHO.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, what does our [[scientific method]] article say about theories and explanations, hypotheses and falsifiablity, drawing corallary conclusions and testing them against observations?

:Do we have another creationist repeating the shameless lie that all who accept evolution as valid are "liberals?" Have creationists no shame? [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 09:37, 3 April 2007

Talk:Theory

2007-03-22T16:06:00Z

Dimensio: /* How can one state that evolution is a good theory on a website that accepts bibilican creation as fact? */

Talk:Darwin's illness

2007-03-16T23:13:25Z

Dimensio: /* Inaccurate and out of context quote snippet */

This should probably be merged with [[Charles Darwin]]. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate and out of context quote snippet==
The quote that contains the word "fantasy" is not an accurate quote (note even that there is no opening quotation mark), and the line itself is divorced from the original context quite dishonestly. When Darwin used the word "fantasy" when discussing his ideas, he was specifically stating that he did not believe that his work was, in fact, a fantasy because of the confidence that others who had studied his ideas had expressed. It is fundamentally dishonest to use the "quote", such as it is, in this article. I am curious as to whether the author is attempting deliberate dishonesty or if the author is simply a poor researcher. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 19:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Darwin's illness

2007-03-16T23:12:28Z

Dimensio:

This should probably be merged with [[Charles Darwin]]. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate and out of context quote snippet==
The quote that contains the word "fantasy" is not an accurate quote, and the line itself is divorced from the original context quite dishonestly. When Darwin used the word "fantasy" when discussing his ideas, he was specifically stating that he did not believe that his work was, in fact, a fantasy because of the confidence that others who had studied his ideas had expressed. It is fundamentally dishonest to use the "quote", such as it is, in this article. I am curious as to whether the author is attempting deliberate dishonesty or if the author is simply a poor researcher.