Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

On the road

2012-09-13T18:44:56Z

Narrator:

'''''On the Road''''' is the second published novel of the American-born French-[[Canada|Canadian]] author [[Jack Kerouac]]. The principle themes are travel, self-fulfilment, [[drugs]], [[sex]], [[jazz]] and a search for spiritual and physical comfort. It was published after Kerouac's first and more conventional novel, ''[[The Town and The City]]'', which was heavily influenced by [[Tom Wolfe]]. Kerouac wrote a novel before either of these titled ''The Sea Is My Brother'', which he disapproved of and therefore did not wish to see published.

''On the Road'' was written in 1951 and published in 1957. It chronicles the real-life travels of Jack Kerouac and his friend Neal Cassady in [[Mexico]] and the rest of [[North America]]. In the book, as in Kerouac's other novels which depicted real people, he gave pseudonymns to his characters in order to prevent accusations of libel He refers to himself as Sal Paradise and to Neal Cassady as Dean Moriaty.

The novel is the first to use Kerouac's own developed style of writing which he called 'spontaneous prose'. This was a style which broke with literary conventions and adopted a sentimental, highly descriptive tone which, as one critic put it, "swings to the rhythym of jazz". Many of Kerouac's sentences in the novel are very long, poetical, highly quotable and lyrical. It was written in three weeks, though for the next six years, it was edited and amended sporadically by Kerouac.

''On the Road'' was deemed highly influential in sparking the [[hippie]] movement of the 1960s.

A quote by the musican [[Bob Dylan]] is included on the back page of the Penguin Classics edition of the novel, in which he says of the book: "It changed my life, like it changes everyone elses."

Kerouac originally found it difficult securing a publisher for the novel, and when he did it was met with critical approval but relatively few sales. Viking Press first published the novel in 1957, though since then it has been published, often with lengthy introductions that illuminate the background to the work, by other publishing companies.

Kerouac wrote a letter urging the actor Marlon Brando to make a film of the novel at a time when he was struggling financially.

''On the Road'' is still widely read today, although mainly among intellectuals. It is generally regarded as one of the classics of American literature, and the leading work of the 'Beat generation' writers, of which Allen Ginsberg and William S. Burroughs were notable figures.

Quotes from the novel are featured on a slab in Kerouac Alley, [[California]], at a site nearby to a bookstore and bar where Kerouac would read and drink.

In a drunken interview years after the novel was published, Kerouac seemed to dismiss the novel, saying "I was young then" and waving his hand as if to imply he regarded the work as immature.
However, many interviews which Kerouac took part in towards the end of his life (he died in 1969) demonstrate that he was suffering from the effects of a life-time of drinking. He would later die as a result of this alcohol abuse.

''On the Road'' was adapted into a film in 2012, to the general dissaproval of devout fans.

Both in style and in content, it continues to be an inspiration, principally as a liberator of disaffected youths. One of the foremost effects of the novel is that it points out the open road, and invites all those who share Kerouac's counter-culture attitude to take to it, just as he did. However, many inspired young people, Kerouac would later reveal, took it upon themselves to call at the home of the author, in order to thank him for it. As he says, by the time the book was in circulation, that part of his life was over. He was too old to join them on their adventures.

Christopher Hitchens

2012-09-12T23:24:44Z

Narrator:

[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|Christopher Hitchens]]
'''Christopher Eric Hitchens''' (April 13, 1949 - December 15, 2011) was a [[Journalism|journalist]], [[author]] and literary critic. Hitchens received a degree in PPE ([[philosophy]], [[politics]] and [[economics]]) from [[Oxford University|Balliol College]], [[Oxford]], in 1970. From 1971-1981, he worked in [[Britain]] as book reviewer for ''The Times'' newspaper. He emigrated to the [[United States of America|United States]] in 1981, and has written regularly, or been a contributing editor for ''Harper's'', ''Vanity Fair'' and [[Nation (magazine)|''The Nation'']]. He was an avowed [[Marxist]], [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[Antitheism|antitheist]]. Hitchens has a younger brother, [[Peter Hitchens]], who is also a journalist, author and critic. Mr. Hitchens was one of the more prominent spokesperson for the [[New Atheism]] movement.

Christopher Hitchens was a member of the International Socialists and an active [[Trotskyist]] during his youth. Before his death he claimed to be "on the same side as the [[Neoconservatism|neo-conservatives]]," but did not consider himself a [[conservative]]. He supported [[George W. Bush|George W. Bush's]] foreign policy, but has a negative attitude towards Bush's support of [[intelligent design]]. Hitchens made himself unpopular, even among fellow atheists for his support of the Iraq War, which was motivated by his hatred of religion - in his own words, he supported the [[Operation Iraqi Freedom|Iraq War]] simply because [[Iraq|Iraqis]] were [[Islam|Muslim]], which has been compared to endorsement of racially-motivated [[genocide]].

He was a harsh critic of [[Ronald Reagan]], and considered [[Henry Kissinger]] a [[war criminal]].

== Unhealthy lifestyle and premature death ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and health]]

Mr. Hitchens was known for having a history of heavy drinking and chain-smoking.<ref>http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy02212003.html</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/christopher-hitchens-desp_n_685021.html Christopher Hitchens: Despite Cancer, I'd Drink & Smoke Again]</ref> Christopher Hitchens was being treated for esophageal cancer which was likely caused by [[alcoholism|drinking]] and [[smoking]] up until his death on December 15, 2011.<ref>http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/07/video-extended-interview-hitchens-on-cancer-and-atheism/</ref><ref>[http://healthblog.ctv.ca/post/Why-did-Hitchens-continue-to-smoke-during-his-treatment.aspx Why did Hitchens continue to smoke & drink during treatment? -CTV News]</ref> Despite his esophageal cancer, when asked by interviewer Charlie Rose if in retrospect he would have engaged in heavy drinking and smoking knowing his present cancer condition, Hitchens said he think he would have done things the same.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/christopher-hitchens-desp_n_685021.html Christopher Hitchens: Despite Cancer, I'd Drink & Smoke Again]</ref> Hitchens also had problems with being overweight during his life (see: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]).<ref>[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3UXl0oMYPLs/SXgxH_-MgFI/AAAAAAAAAF4/EU-wzxEjOmc/s1600-h/atheist-reason.jpg Picture of an overweight Christopher Hitchens smoking a cigarette]</ref> According to the [[National Cancer Institute]], "[[obesity]] is associated with increased risks of cancers of the esophagus."<ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/obesity National Institute of Health - Obesity and Cancer Risk]</ref>

== Hitchens on bestiality ==

''See also:'' [[Christopher Hitchens on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.

At the end of a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[William Lane Craig]] vs. atheist Christopher Hitchens debate there was an audience question and answer period.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU VIDEO] Around an hour and 54 minutes into the aforementioned video, the first audience member to ask a question asked Christopher Hitchens twice whether it is "good that the Bible prohibits humans from having sex with animals." Hitchens answered the question essentially by saying the Bible is not needed to stop humans from doing that, since we are genetically inclined against it and societies that do engage in such harmful behavior tend to die out, citing the example of cannibalistic societies that get kuru.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate]</ref> Dr. Craig said the question posed to Hitchens was a good one and it helped illustrate that atheism cannot offer objective moral standards (see: [[Atheism and morality]]).<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate] </ref>
[[File:Sheep public domain picture.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|Commenting on atheist Christopher Hitchens' refusal to condemn bestiality, the article ''Atheism: A religion of degenerates'' declared: " I feel sorry for all the sheep, little dogs and horses who have been raped by depraved atheists because prominent atheists have refused to condemn bestiality."]]
On August 12, 2012, an article entitled ''Atheism: A religion of degenerates'' declared:
{{cquote|Christopher Hitchens, who was an atheist and a drunkard, was arguably the most popular atheists in the 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st century as well. At the end of his debate with Christian apologists William Lance Craig, there was an audience question and answer period. During this question and answer period, twice Hitchens was asked to condemn bestiality, but he refused to do it each time he was asked.

The Bible teaches that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). I feel sorry for all the sheep, little dogs and horses who have been raped by depraved atheists because prominent atheists have refused to condemn bestiality. Atheism has no basis for objective morality so it is not surprising that atheist degenerates refuse to condemn bestiality.<ref>[http://conservativetriumphs.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheism-religion-of-degenerates.html ''Atheism: A religion of degenerates'']</ref>}}

== Hitchen's self-refutation of his irrational atheistic claims ==

[[Vox Day]] wrote:
{{cquote|In ''The Irrational Atheist'', I noted that Christopher Hitchens had committed a marvelous exercise in self-evisceration when he declared that “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”, then proceeded to pronounce no fewer than 52 different declarations, each of which was presented completely without evidence.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/05/sam-harris-and-epic-self-evisceration.html Sam Harris and the epic self-evisceration]</ref>}}

==Opposition to Islam and Support of the War on Terror==

Christopher Hitchens became an activist against [[Islam]] when Ayatullah Kohmeini declared a [[fatwa]] against his personal friend [[Salman Rushdie]]. The event has led him to become very vocal in his support of the war in Iraq and heavily critical of Muslim society and ethics.

==Insults toward Jerry Falwell==
In a TV interview with Hannity and Colmes a day after [[Jerry Falwell]]'s death, Christopher Hitchens expressed his anger over Falwell's legacy, calling the media coverage of his death uniform in its "stupidity" and calling Falwell himself a "vulgar fraud and crook"<ref name=FAL>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4</ref>. Hitchens went on to state such comments as "we have been rid of an extremely dangerous demagogue who lived by hatred of others and prejudice", "that it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to", "the evil he did will live after him", and "and I think his death is a deliverance" <ref name=FAL/>. [[Hannity]] said that such comments were "crude", "thoughtless", "mean", and "hateful."

==Death==
Christopher Hitchens died on December 15, 2011. The media has reported that the cause of his death was pneumonia, a complication of oesophageal cancer.<ref>Minzesheimer, Bob. "Writer Christopher Hitchens dies at age 62." USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-12-16/obit-hitchens/51999910/1</ref> The cancer was likely caused by his heavy drinking and smoking. Hitchens, during the last period of his life, conducted himself with pride and self-respect, refusing to bow down to religious apolgists and fundamentalists who either sought to 'save his soul' or revelled in his imminent departure to hell. He remained true to his life-long devotion to logic, reason and truth and demonstrated how an atheist may die in peace, assured that he is right, and always has been.

==Select bibliography ==

*''Callaghan: The Road to Number Ten'' (Cassell, 1976)
*''Hostage to History: Cyprus From the Ottomans to Kissinger'' (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1989)
*''Imperial Spoils: The Case of the Parthenon Marbles'' (Hill and Wang, 1989)
*''Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies'' (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1990)
*''The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice'' (Verso, 1995)
*''Prepared for the Worst'' (Hill and Wang, 1989)
*''For the Sake of Argument: Essays & Minority Reports'' (Verso, 1993)
*''No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family'' (Verso, 2000)
*''God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'' - outside the US, published with the alternate subtitle ''The Case Against Religion'' (Atlantic, 2007)

Some other titles include: “Letters to a Young Contrarian,” “The Trial of Henry Kissinger (2001)” and his memoir, “Hitch-22. [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/christopher-hitchens-a-reading-list.html#ixzz1gi8RBrKh]

<blockquote>
“Stranger in a Strange Land”: In this piece that The Atlantic published two months after the attacks of 9/11, Hitchens summed up his break from the establishment left over the attacks and the war on terror that was then only beginning. [[Ibidem]]
</blockquote>

==External links==

*[http://www.truefreethinker.com/christopher-hitchens Christopher Hitchens] by Mariano Grinbank at the [[Christian apologetics]] website [[True Free Thinker]]
*[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1662757,00.html "Why Christopher Hitchens Is Wrong About Billy Graham"], Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, ''[[Time magazine]]'' Tuesday, Sep. 18, 2007

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hitchens, Christopher}}
[[Category:Authors|Hitchens, Christopher]]

[[Category:Journalists]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]
[[Category:New Atheism]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Communists]]

Talk:On the road

2012-09-12T23:03:34Z

Narrator:

== Page title. ==

Upper-Case "R" for "Road." [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 15:53, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

I made that mistake and now don't know how to fix it.

On the road

2012-09-12T23:02:45Z

Narrator:

'''''On the Road''''' is the second published novel of the American-born French-[[Canada|Canadian]] author [[Jack Kerouac]]. The principle themes are travel, self-fulfilment, [[drugs]], [[sex]], [[jazz]] and a search for spiritual and physical comfort. It was published after Kerouac's first and more conventional novel, ''[[The Town and The City]]'', which was heavily influenced by [[Tom Wolfe]]. Kerouac wrote a novel before either of these titled ''The Sea Is My Brother'', which he disapproved of and therefore did not wish to see published. T''he Sea Is My Brother'' is set to be published in late 2012.

''On the Road'' was written in 1951 and published in 1957. It chronicles the real-life travels of Jack Kerouac and his friend Neal Cassady in [[Mexico]] and the rest of [[North America]]. In the book, as in Kerouac's other novels which depicted real people, he gave pseudonymns to his characters in order to prevent accusations of libel He refers to himself as Sal Paradise and to Neal Cassady as Dean Moriaty.

The novel is the first to use Kerouac's own developed style of writing which he called 'spontaneous prose'. This was a style which broke with literary conventions and adopted a sentimental, highly descriptive tone which, as one critic put it, "swings to the rhythym of jazz". Many of Kerouac's sentences in the novel are very long, poetical, highly quotable and lyrical. It was written in three weeks, though for the next six years, it was edited and amended sporadically by Kerouac.

''On the Road'' was deemed highly influential in sparking the [[hippie]] movement of the 1960s.

A quote by the musican [[Bob Dylan]] is included on the back page of the Penguin Classics edition of the novel, in which he says of the book: "It changed my life, like it changes everyone elses."

Kerouac originally found it difficult securing a publisher for the novel, and when he did it was met with critical approval but relatively few sales. Viking Press first published the novel in 1957, though since then it has been published, often with lengthy introductions that illuminate the background to the work, by other publishing companies.

Kerouac wrote a letter urging the actor Marlon Brando to make a film of the novel at a time when he was struggling financially.

''On the Road'' is still widely read today, although mainly among intellectuals. It is generally regarded as one of the classics of American literature, and the leading work of the 'Beat generation' writers, of which Allen Ginsberg and William S. Burroughs were notable figures.

Quotes from the novel are featured on a slab in Kerouac Alley, [[California]], at a site nearby to a bookstore and bar where Kerouac would read and drink.

In a drunken interview years after the novel was published, Kerouac seemed to dismiss the novel, saying "I was young then" and waving his hand as if to imply he regarded the work as immature.
However, many interviews which Kerouac took part in towards the end of his life (he died in 1969) demonstrate that he was suffering from the effects of a life-time of drinking. He would later die as a result of this alcohol abuse.

''On the Road'' was adapted into a film in 2012, to the general dissaproval of devout fans.

Both in style and in content, it continues to be an inspiration, principally as a liberator of disaffected youths. One of the foremost effects of the novel is that it points out the open road, and invites all those who share Kerouac's counter-culture attitude to take to it, just as he did. However, many inspired young people, Kerouac would later reveal, took it upon themselves to call at the home of the author, in order to thank him for it. As he says, by the time the book was in circulation, that part of his life was over. He was too old to join them on their adventures.

Fyodor Dostoevsky

2012-09-12T23:01:13Z

Narrator:

'''Fyodor Dostoevsky''' (Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский) (November 11 1821 – February 9 1881) is a Russian author famous for his lengthy novels about society, social mores, and morality in [[Tzar]]ist Russia. In his novels he explores human psychology in the troubled political, social and spiritual-Christian context of his contemporary Russian society. He is generally considered one of the greatest novelists in history. <ref>http://thisrecording.com/today/2009/8/3/in-which-these-are-the-100-greatest-writers-of-all-time.html</ref>

His major works include ''[[The Brothers Karamazov]]'' and ''[[Crime and Punishment]]''. Though his works are not truly existentialist, they are dark and daunting as the main characters frequently search for an illusive meaning of life. The fact that a writer of such brilliance was able to be simultaneously pre-existentialist and Christian may suggest that the atheistic claims of today's existentialists are disingenuous, although it may not. Noted scholar Walter Kaufmann called Part One of Dostoevsky's short novel ''Notes From Underground'' "the best overture for existentialism ever written." <ref>http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html</ref>

Like many intellectuals of his day who challenged the power and rights of the Tzar, Dostoevsky was exiled to [[Siberia]]. This 10 year experience would frame his views of the world, and change his writings from those of a young naive intellectual to the questing, challenging author he became.

[[Image:Fyodor Dostoevsky.jpg|right|thumb]]

His final work before his death, ''[[The Brothers Karamazov]]'' is considered one of the greatest novels ever written, even from distant secularists like [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] and [[Sigmund Freud]]. In it, the character Ivan Karamazov states, "If there is [[Atheism|no immortality]], there is no virtue." Due mostly to this novel and ''[[Crime and Punishment]]'', Dostoevsky is often considered one of the greatest defenders of theism in all of literature. However, an alternative view exists of him as a nihilist.

== Works ==

* Poor Folk 1846
* The Double: A Petersburg Poem 1846
* Netochka Nezvanova 1849
* The Village of Stepanchikovo 1859
* The House of the Dead 1860
* The Insulted and Humiliated 1861
* A Nasty Story 1862
* Notes from Underground 1864
* Crime and Punishment 1866
* The Gambler 1867
* The Idiot 1869
* The Possessed 1872
* The Raw Youth 1875
* The Brothers Karamazov 1880
* A Writer's Diary (1873-1881)

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==
*[[Leo Tolstoy]]

==External Links==

*[http://fyodordostoevsky.com/literary-works.php Major Literary Works of Dostoyevsky] List of Known works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Many available for free online.

==Further reading==
* Frank, Joseph. ''Dostoevsky: The Years of Ordeal, 1850-1859.'' (1983). 325 pp.
* Frank, Joseph. ''Dostoevsky: The Stir of Liberation: 1860-1865.'' (1986). 395 pp.
* Frank, Joseph. ''Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865-1871.'' (1995). 528 pp.
* Griffiths, Frederick T. and Rabinowitz, Stanley J. ''Novel Epics: Gogol, Dostoevsky, and National Narrative.'' (1990). 184 pp.
* Leatherbarrow, W. J. ''Fedor Dostoevsky: A Reference Guide.'' (317) pp.
===Primary sources===
* Frank, Joseph and Goldstein, David I., eds. ''Selected Letters of Fyodor Dostoevsky.'' (1987). 545 pp

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dostoevsky, Fyodor}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[category:Slavic Authors]]

Fyodor Dostoevksy

2012-09-12T22:58:30Z

Narrator: Blanked the page

Fyodor Dostoevksy

2012-09-12T22:57:57Z

Narrator: Created page with "Fyodor Dostoevksy was a Russian writer, (born November 11, 1821 - died February 9th 1881) and is generally acknowledged to have been among the greatest novellists and psycologist..."

Fyodor Dostoevksy was a Russian writer, (born November 11, 1821 - died February 9th 1881) and is generally acknowledged to have been among the greatest novellists and psycologists (due in part to his three essays) in world literature. He wrote novels, short stories, and essays, but it is in his three novels: The Idiot, Crime and Punishment, and particularly The Brothers Karamazov, that his reputation as a genius primarily resides.

He is among the most widely studied writers in history, being comparable only to Shakespeare in the enormous influence he has had on other writers. This can be seen in almost every writer who came after him, including Anton Chekhov, Marcel Proust, Jack Kerouac, James Joyce, Sigmund Freud, Virginia Woolf, Franz Kafka and Ernest Hemingway. Alongside Leo Tolstoy, he is regarded as the leading figure of the Russian Golden Age.

Though his works are regularly praised for their philosophical and psycological depth, they have been criticised for their lack of artistic merit.

Sylvia Plath

2012-09-12T22:38:17Z

Narrator: Created page with "== Life == Sylvia Plath was an American poet, one-time novellist, and short story writer. She was born on October 27, 1932, in Boston, United States. A very intelligent and extr..."

== Life ==

Sylvia Plath was an American poet, one-time novellist, and short story writer. She was born on October 27, 1932, in Boston, United States. A very intelligent and extremely beautiful woman, she commited suicide on February 11, 1963. Her life, works, and marriage remain shrouded in controversy to this day.
Plath married the poet Ted Hughes in 1956, before he became poet laureate of Great Britain. With him she had one daughter and one son; Frieda and Nicholas Hughes. Nicholas commited suicide in 2009.

== Works ==

Plath is regarded as one of the foremost confessional poets in the history of American literature and was one of the most influential of the 20th century. She drew upon many themes from her own life in her work. For instance, in her poetry, she addressed her loathing of her father, and in her novel, The Bell Jar, she wrote eloquently about her hesitant attitude towards sex, her fear of adhering to societal conventions, the treatment she underwent for mental health issues, and her contemplations of suicide. Plath was awarded the Pulitzer Prize after her death, becoming the first person to receive the award post-humously.

== Notable Works ==

The Bell Jar - a novel.

The Colossus and Other Poems - poetry.

Ariel - poetry.

Crossing the Water - poetry.

Winter Trees - poetry.

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 23

2012-09-12T21:56:10Z

Narrator:

== Evolution not evidentially based and evolution as a social construct ==

Given that there is [[evolution|no real evidence for evolution]], I have decided to put together material for an upcoming Conservapedia article some of which will be incorporated into the evolution article which will partly reveal why there are so many [[Theories of evolution]]. The material I have gathered so far and am in the midst of fact checking is here: [[User:Conservative/EvolutionAsSocialConstruct]] The article will be given the title: [[Evolution as a Social Construct]]. I thought it would be a complementary article for Conservapedia's article: [[Causes of Atheism]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:17, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Actually there is real evidence for evolution. You greatly underestimate the scientific method to propose that something without evidence could be considered a scientific theory under those rules.[[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:36, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::::Riddles, I suggest you read [http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#The_Issue_of_Whether_the_Evolutionary_Position_Qualifies_as_a_Scientific_Theory what Karl Popper wrote about the evolutionary paradigm concerning whether or not it is a theory (His subsequent actions were quite revealing as well).] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:54, 1 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Conservative, Popper was a great admirer of both Darwin and Darwinism. He also thought that metaphysics played an important role in enabling the production of testable theories. Whether Darwinism is seen as a method for producing scientific theories (which is what Popper meant by "metaphysical research programme") or a scientific theory itself, seems to be a very fine point: too fine for an introductory article.[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:04, 30 November 2009 (EST)
::::::Toffeeman, when you actually address the issue get back to me, but not before then. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:56, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== Quick Question... ==

I understand other points of view on evolution, and I've looked at the archive of this talk page, so before I open my mouth, I have a question:
This article, as well every other article on this wiki, is supposed to represent THE conservative point of view on evolution?
We all must acknowledge that different conservatives may know more or less than others, but their collective opinion is supposed to be presented in this article. Am I correct? [[User:Rustyfence|Rustyfence]] 00:47, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Please show us that the evolutionary position is a conservative position. You can start with the early church fathers and Moses. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:17, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Well, "THE" evolutionary position ISN'T a conservative position, all the conservatives I know and this page make that pretty clear. You know what, now that I think about it, I think this page is all good and representative of that standard, then. The numerous improvements I would suggest would not be appropriate for this wiki, because most conservatives don't know about them. I think the best thing I can do is support public knowledge of such topics elsewhere. If conservatives know about said suggestions, then said suggestions and conservative commentary would be appropriate. I have nothing to add to this article. Good luck on the article and God bless. [[User:Rustyfence|Rustyfence]] 16:54, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== The Farm-fox study ==

In the article you refer to a 40(?) year experiment in botany that failed, I was just wondering here if anyone has seen the farm-fox study of domestication which seems to directly contradict this, you can find it [http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/2510%20Spring%2009/Behavior%20Genetics/Farm-Fox%20Experiment.pdf[Here]] I am just posting this because you say you post facts, and it just seems that this article (evolution) is one that is missing many factual arguments. confirmation bias is a dangerous game, and while some people disagree with evolution if you really learn what it is you will see that it has no conflict with religion. It seems right now that most people who refuse to believe in evolution only have a rudimentary understanding of it. The "it's only a theory" seems to be another common strategy and this is invalid as well, theories in the scientific community are not like theories in real life, they are the highest honor bestowed upon a scientific thesis, and to tell you the truth there are fewer cracks in evolution than in newtons laws(a few of newtons laws have already been proven false). Arguments that it seems are being purposely ignored, this is one of the few articles here I have a big problem with so I figured I would offer some actual evidence to see if I can get it changed unlike most people who just come in here and act like a gibbering (deleted) about what they don't like. I would also like to point out that many of the "facts" like the distrust among doctors and the world public distrust of evolution is kinda [http://aysps.gsu.edu/econ/files/ECON_SustersicRebecca_Evolution_summer07.pdf[directly contradicted by this]]. other things like the Irreducible complexity theory are kinda [http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/K_HVrjKcvrU-irreducible-complexity-bacterial-flagellum-debunked.aspx[b.s. as well]]. just thought I would present actual information to attempt to get the article changed instead of coming in here like a gibbering moron and complaining.
:Dear Sev,
I'd like to comment on the Farm-Fox Experiment you linked to. Foxes and Dogs are closely related, so closely in fact that they may be able to interbreed. This is not surprising once you realize they are in fact two descendants of the single baramin 'dog-wolf-fox' that was taken onto Noah's Ark! The original couple had all the dog-wolf-fox information in his DNA, and this information was subsequently corrupted, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The foxes in the experiment you described show an example of micro-evolution, in which the 'dog' genes were selected among the population. No-one denies this can happen, and it is certainly not a proof for the theory of Evolution.
I hope my post helped you understand this issue.
Regards,
--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 09:52, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:Micro evolution is still evolution, evolution it self only denotes a change in a species over time. if the dog traits were continued to be selected for the domesticated fox could become a entire other species, and unable to reproduce with the native fox population, it would take a couple hundred years to achieve but even the most anti-evolutionary can agree that if you change genes enough eventually you will have an entirely different set of them. using your analogy and since any trait can be selected for and brought to any ridiculous lengths given the time and food, the same process that was used to domesticate the fox, could be used to say select for ear size and strength of the muscles in the ear in terriers, then selecting for light weight and low bone density one could theoretically make a terrier that is capable of flying using its ears. I realize that this is a totally asinine and over the top but it is only to demonstrate the concept, micro evolution is still evolution, no matter how small. macro-evolution is just micro evolution over a frankly ridiculous amount of time. Sorry if this makes no sense kinda in a hurry but would like a opinion on it if you did get its meaning, I'll be back soon and can fix it then if you did not.

:--[[User:Sev|Sev]]

== Irrational? ==

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[242]"

This isn't irrational, it's actually a valid comment on the scientific method. Science by definition searches for naturalistic explanations, if someone was able to propose a supernatural explanation (even if it were true) it would be outside the domain of Science. Again, this has nothing to do with "true vs. false"
ie, "god created life" may be true, but if it can't be verified naturally it isn't science.
Cheers
[[User:Tim111|Tim111]] 22:03, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Tim, please give a fairly exhaustive listing of definitions of science with the attending sources. Second, please do elaborate on why a valid definition of science would result in all physical data pointing to conclusion being ignored as I rightfully believe that claims should be adequately supported. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:19, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: The non-suspension of natural laws is a fundamental pillar of science. Since the god of the bible is apparently unrestrained by natural laws he is supernatural and therefore unsatisfactory as a scientific explanation of natural phenomena. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:07, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::Jamesmackenzie, please show that the non-suspension of natural laws is a fundamental pillar of science. Argument by mere assertion is rather pointless. And last time I checked, the originator of the scientific method, [http://www.bartleby.com/3/1/16.html had a very dim view of atheism]. Of course, atheists believe that natural laws have never been suspended in history. Isn't that right? Now if you want to show that Bacon was an atheist or deist by all means do so, but I do not believe you can do that. It seems to me at this point that your alleged pillar has no foundation - especially when one looks at Bacon who originated the scientific method. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:25, 29 November 2009 (EST)
Allow me, if you would.
The scientific method:
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
http://kbagdanov.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/scientificmethod.jpg
There are more, but I'm going to presume you get the idea and move along.

The basis of the scientific method is the experiment. You form an idea. [Form hypothesis] You try something, and then try it again, and again [collecting data], until you see a pattern [analyze data]. Then you take that pattern and check it against your hypothesis [confirm or deny hypothesis], and if it doesn't match, you work on a new hypothesis and try again. When you find a working hypothesis, congratulations. You have something worth sharing. [Share results]

The problem is that using this method, you are assuming that today and yesterday and tomorrow are equivalent when you look for patterns. To make that assumption is completely equivalent to assuming no divine intervention for any given event witnessed and used as data. I'll go through a logic chain if you REALLY want it, but can you not see how this is the case already? EDIT: -Jones
::::Jones, an evolutionist using logic? Thanks for entertaining us with your dry humor. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:05, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Article appears to be non-neutral ==

I'm a conservative in most ways- but I do have a quick question- why does this article take God and Evolution and make them mutually exclusive? Evolution says nothing about God not existing- indeed- I cannot imagine a way that we could form without god's intervention. I support a theory known as guided evolution- where that while species did evolve and change overtime- god oversaw the whole process, guiding it into new directions. Just a thought. God bless! --[[User:Rockstone|Rockstone]] 22:17, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Rockstone, you failed to provide any evidence for your hypothesis of guided evolution. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:11, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::[[Intelligent Design|This ought to be enough evidence, methinks]]. Cheers, [[User:Trustworthiness|Trustworthiness]] 03:11, 18 August 2009
::::::That only talks about the beginning of life, evolution is the genetic change in populations over generations via environmental factors and random mutations and in the case of theistic evolution, by a god [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:40, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== Some links need to be updated ==

Many in the "Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position" section. They currently go to redirect pages. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 21:00, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

== A bit misleading ==

"Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors which is an idea rejected by the current scientific community."

The comment is deliberately misleading. As also stated in [[Lamarck]]'s article (on this site), Lamarck proposed that animals acquire such traits through use over generations/lifetimes. The following is a bit more thorough: ''"Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has now been largely abandoned"'' ([http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html]).

NOTE: The misinformation in the article was posited due to a sentence taken out of place from the source cited in the article: [http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13567]

This is only one of several deliberating misleading comments present throughout; perhaps sites such as "medterms.com" are not the best choices as cogent sources.
::::Perhaps, you should also claim that the Conservapedia Pi article is misleading because it doesn't go far enough out to the right of the decimal point as far you wish concerning the value of [[Pi]]. In short, there is a difference between precision and being misleading. When you are done trying to create a tempest in a teapot, let me know. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:20, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

Another misleading aspect of the evolution page is quote mining. The Mark Ridley quote should include the beginning and the end of the quote.'' "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."'' It could also include, '' "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." ''(page 830)

''"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

''"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." ''(page 832)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

== a study: Morals decline and evolution, incorporate in article ==

Incorporate in article, A study: Morals decline and evolution: http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution
[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:31, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
::Correlation does not imply causation. If that were the case then the decline of pirates would be causing global warming [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:42, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::Riddles, please show us a culture where the evolutionary paradigm improve morals or was not deleterious to the morality of a culture. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:08, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

==A request for permission to use this article==

Hello, I found this page and the counter examples page whilst searching for material to help our children to get a balanced view of the topic. Here in Norway (and all of Scandinavia) the education system is VERY left-wing and atheist, and there is very little non-evolutionist information in Norwegian. Would it be OK if I translated some of your articles to pass on to the our young? By the time kids here have learned good English many have been indoctrinated in to the evolutionist world-view, so I would like to give them both sides of the arguement when they are still young.

I hope I can help you with other things on your excellent site. Trond Eirik [[User:TESvestad|TESvestad]] 16:22, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

: Yes, please do translate and use freely. Thanks for your interest and open-mindedness. I particularly like the [[Counterexamples to evolution]] and find it to be a good educational presentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:29, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

::Hopefully you will give your young a balanced education and allow them the question both sources for and against evolution. Remind them that they should not make up their mind until they hear everything and that, no offense, even you could be wrong here. [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:46, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Or you could be wrong. All I've seen from you is not just a severe lack of ''proving'' evolution, but your constant talking of it in riddles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:18, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== United States point of view ==
Dear co-workers. I'm not sure if I understood well, but I think it's a pity this article only gives an American poinst of view. According to the logo of this site this is logical, but I would appreciate it when is was also written in a more general point of view. Now there are a lot of data which only represent the situation in the USA, but maybe we can consider to add data of other countries. E.g. if the article mentions that 40% of the Americans see the Evolution theorue as true, why not also mention that 27% of the Turkish and 50% of the Rumanian does the same? Thanks [[User:Zenschaatser|Zenschaatser]] 08:53, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::The article mentions the UK as well. If you have data from other countries as well about how Darwinism is losing public support, please feel free to share this information. I do know that the Darwinism is appearing to lose public support in Australia since 1990 and that it has lost a considerable amount of public support in Turkey in recent times as well. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:01, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

== Question on Transitional Forms ==
It seems to me that if the theory of evolution were correct, then nearly every animal would be some kind of transitional form (apart from species that die out). Supposedly, I am a transitional form between my parents and my children. Theoretically, evidence of a lack of transitional forms could, and seems to often be taken to the extreme of requiring every minute change in an organism, or it is dismissed as incomplete. 1000 years from now, if one were to dig up my parents and my children, and conclude they inherited certain genetic variations from evolutionary pressure, someone with the "conservative point of view" would claim there was no transitional form, thus the two organisms were obviously not evidence of evolution. This article seems to lack any questioning of the extremes the idea of transitional forms is taken to by most religious scholars, nor does it show the increasing amount of evidence of actual transitional forms. I fear conservative thought buries itself in a hole when ardently supporting or opposing ideas because they have disagreements with small parts of the bible. The bible was written by men, and as the Bible clearly states, men are not perfect.
::::I noticed you did not have any actual evidence of evolutionary transitional forms supposedly created by macroevolution. By the way, the word Bible is is supposed to be capitalized (I am sure that this was a mere oversight by a scholar such as yourself). :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:16, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::Macro evolution is merely a label for species evolving into other species (which is basically "micro" evolution given enough time) Like the above poster stated, all creatures are transitional forms and the evidence is the actual creatures itself. If you were to look at a high definition digital picture of a rainbow, looking at a pixel and the one right next to it you wouldn't be able to notice the difference easily at all. However it is clear that as you go on a noticeable change begins to occur. This is evolution and "macro evolution" is when those creatures go from being red to noticeably orange.
::::::Always happy to educate people on evolution [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:53, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Riddles, I believe [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118 you are mistaken] and if you check the [[evolution|Conservapedia evolution article]] you will find that creation scientists believe in speciation. I don't believe speciation could be considered large scale changes. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:27, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

==Interesting article==

Though someone might appreciate this: [http://creation.com/multiverse-theory Multiverse theory—unknown science or illogical raison d’être?] When someone is well adapted to its purpose, and able to adapt, it is easy to presume that is how it can to be.

BTW, the Bible speaks of "kinds", and Creationists believe in microevolution within such.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:53, 18 November 2009 (EST)

== Intellectuals Reference ==

Claiming Aristotle & Archimedes as evidence against Evolution is pretty silly considering they lived many, many years before Darwin. That's like saying gravity is unverifiable because Plato never wrote about it. I'm not attacking the whole article. Just that one point is a terrible argument.
::::Evolutionism was around before Darwin. Next time you comment on an article, you might want to read it first. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:05, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== Inclusion of Gallup Poll of "Scientists" Opinnions ==

Hi!

This is a well written article, with some really good links and references provided. After doing some research, I wanted permission to include a reference to another poll in the opening paragraphs.

Just below the paragraph containing the well referenced mentions of polls on American citizen's acceptance of evolution, and the opinions of medical doctors, I would like to include a reference to the 1997 Gallup poll on "scientists" acceptance of evolution.

The results show that while a near majority of the public are creationist, only 5% of scientists are. 40% of scientists believe in "God-Guided" Evolution, and 55% accept an entirely naturalistic theory of evolution.

There is a breakdown of the study here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm (Also, I assume it could be accessed from Gallup itself, though I can't work out how. Perhaps this information would be stored in a public library?)

Since this site is all about presenting the facts, and this article already makes significant use of polls to demonstrate those facts, I feel this is an appropriate addition to this article.

Thanks for your time, and I hope you'll include my suggestion! I put alot of reasearch into it.

Lex [[User:LRose|LRose]] 22:04, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::Lex, the study you cited is already in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:04, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== Hitler and Evolution ==

I myself have read Mein Kampf, and I can assure you that Hitler did not believe in evolution. Hitler believed in divine creation and was quite religious. Example: Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Ch. 10.

It is terribly biased to say Hitler killed people because he was an atheist when he himself claims to be a theist. I suggest the Hitler section be removed, or be heavily revamped. Thanks for your time.

=== LRose's Response ===
Hi, I don't know who wrote the above post, but this is my response!

Actually, there is evidence in ''Mein Kampf'' that Hitler, like most leaders of the time (even those professing Christian faith), did subscribe to the theory of evolution. He invoked a simplistic understanding of the theory to justify his hatred of the Jews. In ''Mein Kampf'', Hitler uses Evolution to try and argue that the Jews were a different species, and thus the German people shouldn’t mate with them:

<blockquote>
“If '''Nature''' does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an '''evolutionary''' higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.“
Chapter XI Race & People

</blockquote>
<blockquote>

“Unconsciously his instinct will submit to the knowledge that the preservation of the species, even at the cost of the individual life, is a primal necessity and he will protest against the fantasies of pacifist ranters, who in reality are nothing better than cowardly egoists, even though camouflaged, who contradict the laws of human development. For it is a necessity of human '''evolution''' that the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favor of the common weal, and that he should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to know better than '''Nature''' and who have the impudence to criticize her decrees.“
Chapter XI Race & People
</blockquote>

(Sorry for not including page references, I was using this online translation of ''Mein Kampf'': http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt)

Now, I don’t speak German, so I couldn’t read the original. It is possible the word here translated as “evolution” comes from a different German word, which does not have the same scientific meaning.

However, even so, it’s clear that Hitler is using arguments of natural superiority to justify his racism.

But He also used arguments from faith, referring to God, Creation, and suggesting the Jews are somehow the work of the Devil.

<blockquote>
“Of course, one doesn't discuss such a question with the Jews, because they are the modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of '''God's''' image in''' His creation'''.“
Chapter XI War Propaganda
</blockquote>

Here, he argues that the Germans were the ones created in the image of God, and breeding with the Jews will corrupt them: <blockquote>
“for all the Jewish daughters of the department store proprietors are looked upon as eligible mates to co-operate in propagating '''His Lordship's stock'''.”
Chapter X Why The Second Reich Collapsed
</blockquote>

Here he talks of Jesus, and argues that Jesus was anti-semetic:
<blockquote>
And the '''Founder of Christianity''' made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time '''Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews''';
</blockquote>

Clearly, Hitler had a horribly, offensive, perverted understanding of the Gospel!!! It's revolting to even read it!!

But the point is, he used Christianity to justify his actions. Thus, the Evolutionists can make the exact same arguments against us, as we make against them.

So, anytime we say that the Holocaust was a “social effect of Evolution” they’re just going to say that it was a “social effect of Christianity”.

My Conclusion:

It’s clear from ''Mein Kampf'' that Hitler was nothing more than a nut job opportunist. He claimed to believe in anything that supported his own crazy racism.

I would also argue that we should remove the section on Hitlet’s belief’s in evolution. Because I would hate to go to Wikipedia, or some liberal site, and see them claiming that Hitler was a Christian, and it was his belief in Christianity that lead to the Holocaust.

I believe in honest debate. And to me, it’s dishonest to say that Hitler was an Evolutionist. He was no more and Evolutionist, than he was a Christian.

== Evolution Is Not Fundamentally Violent; Christianity Is ==

I would like to point out an incontrivertible fact:

Adolf Hitler regularly made appeals to God in Mein Kampf, calling upon Him to support his 'struggle' to 'rid the world of Jews'. I have read Mein Kampf, and studied Hitler's life, and have noted that Hitler's Christianity cannot be denied. He was an avid believer. However, I admit that many of his claims distorted fundamental Biblical teachings, though not by a wide margin, and his interpretation of the Bible was often based on desire, as opposed to reality. A caveat to this however was that much of what he wrote of, drawn from the Bible, in order to support his beliefs, was not distorted, and was impirically anti-semetic also.

As [[Christopher Hitchens]] points out in his book: [[god Is Not Great]], Mein Kampf was published at a time when the Catholic church was banning books at will, if they even slightly opposed orthodox Christian theological teachings, as presented by Roman Catholicism.
Therefore, given the fact that the Pope (who definitely was aware of, and did read) Mein Kampf, chose '''NOT''' to ban it, I would suggest that this implies - or, indeed, insists - that the book was met with approval by the Papacy.
As I have noted, Hitler called upon God - a Christian God - to support him in his efforts (what is written in Mein Kampf certainly does not suggest a holocaust is inconceivable to Hitler) and therefore, one would assume that if the Pope read it, he would be thoroughly incensed by it. Because the Pope read it, and didn't take action (any at all!) what are we to think but that he supported Adolf's desire to rid the world of so called 'Christ-killers'? (I personally would call God responsible for the death of Jesus Christ - if He exists, and there is no reason to assume He does.)

As for the matter of Hitler being an evolutionist, he certainly was aware of the theory, and adhered to it somewhat, but, just as I have said he did of Christian theology and doctrine, (which, if taken fundamentally - the only logicial way to do so - would itself demand the essential murder of millions of women by banning contraceptives and causing AIDS to flourish in Africa) he also warped the theories of Charles Darwin to conform to his own murderous desires. What Hitler wrote of was a 'will of nature', and that is something which implies that nature can make conscious decisions, while humanity is incapable of choosing what to do and what not to do for itself. This is not a fundamental Darwinist theory. Darwinism explains the facts about our origins. It does not limit, through this, our potential to go beyond them. Such people as Hitler, and the religious apologists on this site, as well as the person above me, who, in a desperate attempt to seem neutral, has blindfolded his or herself to numerous facts, vindicate more than anything else, Darwin's claim that:

"Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible scar of his lowly origin."

- Lex [[User:LRose|LRose]] 21:56, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Do you also deny that [[Josef Mengele]] was an evolutionist?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::Does it matter if he was an atheist? This post is bout Hitler, not that guy. Use him if you want, and if he was an evolutionary atheist, but he is not the same person as Hitler. Your argument is invalid. -Jones
::::Jones, were [[Hitler]] and [[Josef Mengele]] both Nazis and did they both believe in Nazi evolutionary racist ideology? If you evidence to the contrary Conservapedia would be most indebted to you if you shared it. I was curious whether or not you were very knowledgeable about this subject matter and I also wanted to know if your logic was unimpeachable. Of course, if you were merely a liberal deceitfully and illogically spouting off of about matters you know very little about, it will soon become apparent. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:13, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== ERV's ==

ERV's alone put evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvF4q88YODU Endogenous Retroviruses: Life-Cycle and Ancestral Implications]

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8kDzftu2w4 Endogenous Retroviruses: The Three Layers of ERV Evidence for Common Ancestry]
:::[[Endogenous retrovirus|Are you aware of any arguments against ERV's by creation scientists]]? If so, what are they? "The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes to examine him." - King [[Solomon]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:01, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::What is a creation scientist? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 01:28, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::Hectoruribe, have you ever heard of search engines? They are really great things that enable you to answer very simple questions yourself. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:57, 17 April 2010 (EDT)
::::::::In fact, just search Conservapedia. We have an article on [[creation science]] that explains it quite well. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 16:59, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

== evolution and debate ==

evolution and debate: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html Research the facts surrounding the debate and cite it in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:08, 1 January 2010 (EST)

== climategate and darwin doubting ==

Climategate and darwin doubting: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34935 Incorporate in the article perhaps. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:12, 1 January 2010 (EST)

== Definition ==

I'd just like to suggest that the definition of evolution from Merriam-Webster be changed to " a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory" I think that this would be more accurate, and could reduce the possibilty of accusations of "picking and choosing" --[[User:LucyJ|LucyJ]] 16:52, 22 February 2010 (EST)
::::Thanks, I put a .... after the Webster citation to be more precise/accurate. I thought the "also" addition didn't really add that much plus it would be less favorable in terms of the sentence's flow. The detractors of the evolutionary paradigm often assert that the evolutionary paradigm is "just a theory" or merely a hypothesis. Regardless, Webster does not consider the evolutionary paradigm to be a scientific law. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:14, 8 March 2010 (EST)

== Lamarckism ==

re: Lamarckism

Has anyone followed what is going on within the evolutionary community regarding this material: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong Why Everything You Have Been Told About Evolution is Wrong][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:34, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

Yes, I have. Really, I am addressing the article in this answer, and my whole view on the subject could change if any actual evidence was placed before me which it is not even in Fodor's book. That article demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of evolutionary biology and genetics. If it were describing environmental effects on genetic hereditry, with the outcome being beneficial for the offspring, such as in Lamarck's positation that giraffes have long necks because their parents and grandparents (etc) were constantly endeavouring to reach for food, then yes, the arguement against Darwinian theory would exist. But that is not what the report contains. The article lists three exemplary studies - and, given the relish with which the journalist puts them forward, it would make sense to assume they are the only studies supporting this claim (for surely such an anti-Darwinist would not neglect a supplementary affront to Darwinism). Therefore, it is evident that the sole evidence against the scientifically held theory of evolution is easily dismissable. The reason is because the two cases, that of chickens and their offspring, men and their grandchildren, (while for now excluding mice and their young), detail negative circumstances which organisms had to endure, and, in mice in their young, an abstract positive chance. The fact that there were then subsequent abnormalities in the chickens' children, or mens' grandchildren, or positive ones in a small number of mice, does not demonstrate that evolution is influenced by inherited characteristics based on environmentally-influenced actions, but re-iterates something already known by scientists like Dawkins and Dennett: that, in the case of the first two, an organism which undergoes stress and/or negative circumstances, will not transmit the traits to subsequent generations by means that differ from Darwin's articulated mechanism, but that chemical imbalances will distort the sensitive physical and genetic structure of genes, impairing their ability to assimilate and propigate instructional codes in the new organism they are now building. That is, a chicken that is subjected to stress (by the way, what a cruel experiment!) will undergo chemical imbalances which will have a direct influence on their ability to produce sex cells, and the same is true of the grandfathers. The only difference in their case is that what has been affected is simply a section of DNA that often skips a generation. As for the mice, even though the article gives no references, and I have read the book from which it draws its information, that can be placed under the heading of chance. What the article fails to realise, moreover, is that evolution and/or natural selection does not rely on randomness, but that it is a structured process, guided by rules and, by the nature of the unconscious force at work, codes of conduct. Furthermore, there is no evidence of horizontal transfer included. To speak of rape, moreover, as natural, neglects the fact that humans can chose whether or not to do what they want, though they admittedly cannot chose what to want. And as for the purpotedly 'insightful' and 'shocking' claim that rape is natural, isn't everything natural, being that it exists? How is a beaver dam more natural than a skyscraper, or a volcano more natural than a living room sofa? Of course rape is natural, because people do it! Then we come to the ridiculous point: "Survival of the fittest. Who are the fittest? The ones who survive!" This fails to realise that the fittest are the ones most suited to surviving. We can observe, prior to an organism dying, and another surviving, which is most suited to its environment, and accurately predict which one will survive! Therefore, it is not correct to say that survival of the fittest is a redundant term, but that it is an apt one. Ann Coulter's point that: "The 'survival of the fittest' would be a joke if it weren't part of the belief system of a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community" is therefore nullifed. Although, like everything she says, it ridicules itself. The following paragraph is arguably the most stupid in the history of literature: "Fodor notes – undeniably correctly – that not every trait a creature possesses is necessarily adaptive. Some just come along for the ride: for example, genes that express as tameness in domesticated foxes and dogs also seem to express as floppy ears, for no evident reason. Other traits are, as logicians say, "coextensive": a polar bear, for example, has the trait of "whiteness" and also the trait of "being the same colour as its environment". (Yes, that's a brain-stretching, possibly insanity-inducing statement. Take a deep breath.) Step two: natural selection, according to its theorists, is a force that "selects for" certain traits. (Floppy ears appear to serve no purpose, so while they may have been "selected", as a matter of fact, they weren't "selected for". And polar bears, we'd surely all agree, were "selected for" being the same colour as their environment, not for being white per se: being white is no use as camouflage if snow is, say, orange.)" . . . Now, polar bears' whiteness is not 'selected for' and that is the answer, because snow is not and never has been orange. As for the dog's ears, is he really saying that just because we don't know something now, we won't in future!? Daniel Dennett, astute as ever, summarises Fodor's book immaculately, and so I need only refer you to his comments on it, which are in the article. As for the last paragraph of the article, which is: "The irony in all this is that Darwin himself never claimed that it [natural selection] was [the only force at work in evolution]. He went to his deathbed protesting that he'd been misinterpreted: there was no reason, he said, to assume that natural selection was the only imaginable mechanism of evolution. Darwin, writing before the discovery of DNA, knew very well that his work heralded the beginning of a journey to understand the origins and development of life. All we may be discovering now is that we remain closer to the beginning of that journey than we've come to think." First of all, Darwin said what he said because he was under a huge amount of pressure from his friends, his wife, and a religious society, and his words were an act of false contrition to their deistic delusions. As for the discovery of DNA, it has not proved Darwin wrong. Instead, it has proved him right. It has just allowed us to narrow down the scale at which natural selection can be considered to work. And this fact is clearly visible in Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene'.

== Terribly biased? ==

Why does the entire article talk about evolution as if it is untrue when it is just valid as cell theory plate tectonic theory? [[User:Bradology|Bradology]] 10:17, 2 April 2010 (EDT)
::::Bradology, please let us know when you intend to stop engaging in [http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html Bulverism] and start producing valid evidence for the evolutionary paradigm. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:52, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

== Regarding the cross burning ==

David Duke is a creationist. The KKK platform is that the "laws of our creator" should be used. While you can certainly argue convincingly that they are not following the bible closely I do not think you can argue that a political party that is fighting to remove Darwin from biology books is following an evolutionary ideology. --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 16:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
::::Please feel free to provide convincing evidence that adequately addresses the footnoted material I provided. I have no desire to engage in dueling monologues. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:28, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

== Bias in Article ==

Bias in general is considered to be anything that influences one's behavior. Having a picture of Hitler at the very beginning of the article is clearly a sample of bias in this sense. Hitler is one of the most hated individuals to have ever lived, and understandably so. Showing an image of him at the beginning of the article gives any reader a predisposition to what they are about to read, as their emotional response will already have begun. As stated in earlier discussions, Hitler cannot simply be labeled an evolutionist. To associate him with evolution at the beginning of the article gives any reader a different view on what they might believe otherwise. Removing this picture as well as his quote, or at least placing it later in the article would resolve this. {{Unsigned | User:NewThought}}
:To deny Hitler was an evolutionist is to deny the reason he murdered over 6 million people. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:22, 28 April 2010 (EDT)
::Not the only reason, mind you, but the most important and influential reason nonetheless. [[User:DavidBG|[[User:DavidBG]]]] 13:45, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::User NewThought, if you don't want web pages to have an effect on your behavior or beliefs, I suggest you close your eyes after clicking on a link and also put your fingers in your ears just in case there is audio. Secondly, you have to better than merely state your positions if you want there to be changes, you have to make a good case for any changes.
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019 [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:52, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lysenkoism ==

There should be a link to [[Lysenkoism]] when the article mentions that pseudo-science. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:13, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:There already is. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 16:42, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

----

I would like to edit the quote of Dawnin in a letter to Gray [2]. It is wrongly quoted and is a fragmented sentence. The whole sentence is "It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
::::::Please elaborate on why you allege that it is wrongly quoted. By the way, are you an [[atheism|atheist]]? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:54, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Conservative, whether this user is atheist or not has nothing to do with the question. He's calling you out for quote-mining Darwin.
:::::::Oh, and user who left no signature—I wouldn't expect this article to be unlocked ever. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 13:03, 8 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::No real evidence was given for the quote mining allegation which I thought was quite unreasonable. I have found that atheists and evolutionists often engage in bluffing as far as their allegations and when you call their bluff no evidence is given by them for their allegations. Please read this article: http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Atheisms-house-of-cards-Part-3 Resident Transfan, are you an atheist? If you are an atheists, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:22, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Why liberals cannot point out factual errors ==

This article is almost entirely constructed of quotes. The only thing that the article says for the most part is that Person A said "B" and person C said "D" and the rest is made up of broad generalizations that aren't directly reliant on facts. A challenge could be raised that Person A knows nothing about subject B or that source D is biased in such a way as to compromise reliability but those wouldn't be direct challenges to the factual accuracy of the article. --[[User:AbbieM|AbbieM]] 18:31, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
::::Could you please do us a favor and give us a close percentage of content that is quotes and break it down by quotes from evolutionists and quotes from creation scientists. Also, how many of the footnoted sources did you read? Lastly, can you definitively show that the quotes were factually incorrect in terms of what they asserted (because I can see you did not do that)? By the way Abbie, are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::It should be 'an atheist', not 'an atheists'. I appreciate the copy-and-paste message, however, and will be posting an essay on this in the near future.[[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:27, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::Alright, I've gone through the article and looked at quotes, dividing them into three categories. There are quotes from an Evolutionary point of view, quotes from a Creationist point of view, and quotes that are neutral - a news corporation reporting statistics, for example, would fall under this category. I determined the following percentages by the total number of words.

:::::Here's what I found: Approximately 45% of the article is comprised of quotes. The article itself contains just under 14,000 words, and of those just over 6,000 are quotes. 2400 words are from Evolution supporters, 3150 words are from Creationists, and 650 are from neutral sources (approximately). This means that approximately 17% of the article is comprised of quotes from Evolutionists, 23% from Creationists, and nearly 5% from neutral sources. That means 39% of the actual quotes are from Evolutionists, 51% from Creationists, and about 10% from neutral sources. This was all done by the number of words, not characters. Frankly, I find this percentage to be drastically high. For one thing, should Evolution not be better represented in its own article than Creationism? That is to say, should intellectually honest writers include more quotes from Creationists than Evolutionists in an Evolution article? Furthermore, the Evolution quotes that are included are, practically without exception, cherry-picked and taken out of context. Even in the sources from which they derive, they are rarely given appropriate context. This is a degree of laziness that should only be associated with liberals. We conservatives ought to be more up-to-point.

:::::Also, this entire article reeks of liberal wordiness. Does the article truly need to be this long? Perhaps a single, shorter page should be present to define Evolution, then we could have one page for those who support evolution, and another page for quotes/articles/criticisms of Evolution. That seems the best way to chop this article down to size.[[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 16:46, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::::: Jacob, are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? Secondly, please put your quote claim statistics in a Excel or Open Office spreadsheet and post it somewhere for verification purposes. Then, please provide proof and evidence concerning each quote you allege to be in error. Lastly, evolutionism is so flagrantly in error that the article is concise. If we were to put the myriad of ways that evolutionism is errant, illogical, wicked and foolish; it would take many sets of CDs to do it justice. We just did our small part to offer something more concise. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:46, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::So, JacobP, the article is completely and totally wrong, and that is based solely on the ''number of words'' in the article? Golly gee...maybe the Bible is wrong because there's too many books in it; maybe the Declaration of Independence is wrong because Jefferson didn't format it properly; maybe the Constitution is wrong because a spell-check wasn't done on it; maybe ''Huckleberry Finn'' is wrong because Twain didn't check with the local school board first. Or maybe, JacobP, it is ''your logic that is wrong''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:45, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::I was told that my "JacobP" username was too similar to another users', so this is "JacobP" under a new username, "JacobPope14", the number being chosen at random. Now, to answer your question, I am not an atheist nor, if I were an atheist, would I claim to have 'proof' of atheism. As a Christian, I do not claim to have proof of Christianity either. My beliefs are not based on rational thought, but on faith, as is the intention of religion.
::::::::::However, regarding the verification of my study, where would you like me to post this information? Can you not merely read through the article, highlight all material that is a quotation, and compare the number of words to verify what the user above was stating? The article is very heavily comprised of quoted material. As a tabloid, perhaps, this would be appropriate, but I think more time ought to be dedicated to rewriting this article with factual information regarding the criticisms of Atheistic Evolutionary Thought, or AET, as I call it. While I do not doubt the credentials of the many people quoted, I highly doubt that any of them share completely identical views on the subject matter, so it may not be appropriate to compose an article that is very near to being more quotes than information itself.
:::::::::::Also, regarding Karajou, I never made a claim that the article was factually errant. I merely stated that it was wordy, taking up a large amount of space to convey a very small amount of actual information. My reference to 'number of words' was an admission to the fact that when I took a comparison of the article - breaking it down into quotes from Evolutionists, Creationists, and neutral sources - I used 'words' as opposed to 'number of quotes' or perhaps 'letters' when I ran the numbers. I find it rather odd that you would so readily attack another Conservative for what I can only guess is an assumption that I have liberal ideas, which I assure you is not the case. I merely want this article to be as factually accurate, concise, and accessible as possible to readers. Are those not admirable goals? [[User:JacobPope14|JacobPope14]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::::Jacob, I am sorry to hear that your beliefs do not have any basis in rational thought. Are you sure you are not an atheist? The apostles certainly appealed to being eyewitnesses and the Bible in Romans rightly declares that the creation testifies to the existence of God (Rom 1:20). Lastly, as far as your alleged study, there are plenty of free places to post material on the internet.(blogspot, etc. ). [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:56, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

== Why is user [[User:Conservative|conservative]] the only person allowed to edit this article? ==

I assume a few other admins are also allowed to but this article is pretty much completely written by [[User:Conservative|conservative]]. That doesn't seem fair at all. Isn't the whole point of a wiki to allow lots of other people to pitch in on it? How do we know who this [[User:Conservative|conservative]] person is, and how do we know they have the credentials to write an entire article on evolution accurately? It seems completely ridiculous to me that you guys block out everyone except for this one person on the subject of evolution. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 19:45, 29 July (CST)
:And you are...? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:49, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
::Someone who reads this from time to time. But my point still stands. How is it fair to let only one person contribute to this article? Considering how much of this article focuses on creationists being silenced and censored in much of the media, you would think that this place, of all places, would welcome the input of others. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 20:36, 29 July (CST)
:::If the input is concerned with a theory, then I would welcome it; but if the input pushes evolution as "fact" then we won't allow it. We've had several members who tried ''forcing'' that viewpoint on us, ''forcing'' the "Bible-is-a-fairy-tale" opinion, ''forcing'' their own religious beliefs on this site. Didn't work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:50, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying you should allow the "Bible-is-a-fairy-tale" opinion at all. What I'm concerned about is that even if someone wants to add their own creationist/ID material to this article, they can't. The very most I'm guessing they could do is add it to the talk page and let conservative approve it. I don't mean to say anything bad about conservative but why should we leave those decisions SOLELY up to him/her for this one article? If you only let one person write an article on the entire subject of evolution it's bound to have some pretty major flaws. I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous how restricted this article is. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 11:18, 30 July (CST)

::::: A tiny percentage of articles on this site are locked (and later unlocked) due to vandalism. No locking is permanent, and any editor can earn administrative privileges through merit, which gives that editor the power to edit any page. Also, as you suggest, suggested edits to a locked page can always be posted on the talk page. So there are several ways that any editor can contribute to any page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:31, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
[[File:Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.jpg|thumbnail|right|275px|'''<big>[[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]</big>''' ]]
::::::::Karajou, thanks for the laugh. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:26, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
Has any one here even read any of Charles Darwin's books? Or do you just google, cut and paste?
[[User:Tbunton|Tbunton]] 08:26, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:Yes, I have Darwin's ''Origin of Species'' and ''Decent of Man'' in my house, part of Britannica's ''Great Books of the Western World'', published in 1991, etc etc. And if you look at many college essays or websites devoted to the ''support'' of evolution, you will find evidence of people who "just google, cut and paste." Like those above, you're playing the "evo-is-fact" game without bothering to even creak open your mind just for a little bit to see that what we present are the real facts of the matter. You learn more if you open your mind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:24, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design.[1] In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."[2][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:15, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why do we have three statistics about medical doctors in the opening section? ==

Medical doctors are not taught anything about evolution in school, nor are they required to know anything about it to practice. They are not experts in the field any more than computer scientists or waitresses. The three different statistics about medical doctors in the article just make it look bad, sort of... desperate. Maybe some statistics about biologists would be good instead? At least some kind of scientist.
:::Are you claiming that [http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-science.shtml medical science] is not a science? And are you claiming that medical science does not utilize biology? If so, why? Lastly, you have not shown that macroevolution has existed or does exist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:23, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
::::Evolutionists often claim that the applied science of medicine depends on evolution because it is derived from biology. Therefore, the explicit beliefs of medical doctors is certainly relevant.--[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:35, 31 August 2010 (EDT)

== Poe's Law Talk Page ==

When I clicked on the Talk page for [[Poe's Law]], I was redirected to the page on Evolution. Why is that?

Also, in regards to the Poe's Law page itself, why is it filled with material regarding Creationism, even though Poe's Law is not about Creationism? --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 17:19, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
:::JohnLee, please provide evidence and further explanation concerning your contentions about Poe's Law and creationism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:40, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

== genome and the evolutionary paradigm ==

Excellent research re: genome and the evolutionary paradigm: http://creation.com/genome-mania [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:41, 16 October 2010 (EDT)
==Suggested addition==

I would like to add some further points from Dr Behe's later book ''[[the Edge of Evolution]]'' to the section "Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position", specifically regarding how Dr Behe empirically proved that ''even if'' we accepted the huge assumptions made by evolutionists, ''their very own theory'' cannot account for the diversity of life we currently see. I guess this article is locked as it was a target for atheist trolls, so if it cannot be unlocked perhaps an administrator could add some more info regarding evolutionists lack of any answers to Dr Behe's findings? [[User:PhilipM|PhilipM]] 17:27, 18 November 2010 (EST)
:::Write up some material and post it here. We can stick it in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:29, 1 December 2010 (EST)

=A quote out of context=
Reference 262, quoting Eugenie Scott, is out of context and does not reflect the message of the general article. [[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 20:54, 30 December 2010 (EST)

:You have to prove your argument much better than that if you want to persuade anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::Mr. Schlafly, you beat me to it! AnaC, my comment was going to be similar to the above comment, if you wonder why I post no reply but indicate so on your talk page. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:17, 30 December 2010 (EST)
 
After reading the entire article, I came to the conclusion that the article points out several different reasons extraneous to the actual ideas being presented that would suggest a tilt in favor of the creationist discussion

Scott states:
""What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at
the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a
religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship.
That's the first problem. '''The audience that is most anxious to
'''come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that
'''supports the creationist.''' In the comparatively rare situation
where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of
good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the
audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercize every
effort to turn out their crowd."

The author also talks about debate format as a possible cause:
"The goal of a debate (I assume) is to
teach the audience something about evolution and the nature of
science. This is possible in a debate format, but '''it is difficult
'''to do well, because it is not easy to do quickly.
....
How long does it take to straighten out your audience on this
matter? The creationist has made a simple declarative sentence,
and '''you have to deal with not an easily-grasped factual error, but
'''a logical error and a methodological error, which will take you far
'''longer to explain.''' As I was writing this, a community college
teacher called to tell me she had trouble convincing her students
they were made out of smaller parts! Now maybe not all audiences
are at such a primitive level that they don't even accept cell
theory, but given the fact that your opponent just has to say, "It
didn't happen" (i.e., "there are no transitional forms",
"radiometric dating doesn't work," etc.) means '''you have a bunch
'''more talking to do from the get-go'''."
.....
'''I have no objection, by the way, to appearing on radio and TV with
'''creationists, and have done so many times.''' In this format, it is
possible to have some sort of point-counterpoint which is (though
it seems odd to say it) not possible in a formal debate format. On
the radio, I have been able to stop Gish, et al, and say, "Wait a
minute, if X is so, then wouldn't you expect Y?" or something
similar, and show that their "model" is faulty. But in a debate,
the evolutionist has to shut up while the creationist gallups
along, spewing out nonsense with every paragraph.

And finally, the author suggests a method for dealing with this format flaw:
With this format, the audience is given digestable bits of
information and is not overwhelmed by a barrage of impossible-to-
answer nonsense. The evolutionist at least has a fighting chance
to teach something about science and evolution.

'''Of course, whenever the ICR has been presented this option, they
'''have refused to debate.

It seems to me that way that the quote was used, it was meant to support the view that evolutionists do not want to debate out of the perceived inadequacy of their own arguments, but the author states that it is because of the structural flaws of the debate itself. The author states in the essay that the debater and his supporters think he did a good job, so in the end both parties think they did well, only that, according to the author, the creationist is perceived to have won because he has a lot more support from the audience.

Seen in this context, it would be more useful to use a different quote to support the point of view, since the author is not sincere in his expression that creationists win the arguments. [[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 22:51, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:But if we recruited heavily, without financial incentives and the like that are normally presented at scientific conferences (no need to hide it, I've seen the same actions taken at financial conferences) and with simply word of mouth and such, I highly doubt we'd have any tangible turn out or visible support if our beliefs were without merit. That's basic psychology and really just common sense, wouldn't you agree? While evolutionists and other such members of the "scientific community" need financial incentives, the promise of glory upon publication in like-minded journals, etc, we don't have this receptive atmosphere. Rather, we have only the weight of our arguments to persuade people. Perhaps this and not the "heavy recruitment" (which the author you mention, interestingly enough, ''does not'' detail in any way) is the reason for our support? Did that possibility occur to you? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 23:11, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::I do not understand what you are trying to say. I am simply quoting the author, and that is what he claimed--I have no knowledge of whether his claims are true nor the implications they may have if they were (or were not), nor do I know the motivations of the people who do go to the debates. But in any case, if true, the numbers would skew the result, regardless of the method of recruitment.[[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 23:28, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:::My apologies if I wasn't entirely clear. My reasoning is this: the simple fact that, from personal experience, audiences that share are beliefs have no additional incentive, outside of hearing them validated, to come to such a debate, while evolutionists and other followers of Scott most likely ''do'' have additional incentives, whether they be financial, extra credit in classes, etc. The fact that in spite of this difference, our support vastly outnumbers all other groups combined at such debate, in essence makes the level of recruitment irrelevant. Also, keep in mind that Eugenie Scott is one of our loudest and most vociferous critics. I trust that you're aware of her "participation" in the problems in Dover, where an issue that simply did not concern her suddenly became her business? Interestingly enough, she immediately published a book using her newfound publicity. Do my previous comments about entering a debate for financial incentive seem more clear with that example? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 23:38, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::::I do not know anything about the author, nor what she has chosen to do with her life. You stated that "The fact that in spite of this difference, our support vastly outnumbers all other groups combined at such debate, in essence makes the level of recruitment irrelevant.", which I do not understand. I do believe that moral conviction is a much stronger motivator than any financial gain. From my experience, spiritual motivation is one of the strongest motivators that exists. However, I do not understand how this pertains to the fact that the author did not mean to "confess" that creationists win debates, since she does not believe that they were playing fair. The article does not address this, and gives the impression that this is what the author truly believes.[[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 23:53, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:::::I don't have time at the moment to respond to this immediately as I'm on my way out the door, but if you have any pressing questions, you can email me (tyler.zoran@gmail.com, it's also on my user page) and I'll address them ASAP in the morning. Otherwise, I'll try to respond here tomorrow. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 00:00, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::::::In the meantime, though, research Eugenie Scott a bit more if you can. You'll find it very interesting, especially when you realize the perspective that influences everything she does. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 00:01, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Experiments on Evolution the article states: The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.[11][12]

However this has indeed been observed in nature and experiments demonstrating evolution have been performed in a laboratory, such as Richard Lenski's bacterial studies. Lenski has made all his strains available and it would only be appropriate to repeat the experiments and find flaws in them before dismissing them outright.

: You can't be serious. If that research paper had been submitted to me by a college student, then I probably would have returned it ungraded for reasons explained long ago (and still available) on this website. (Also, please sign your postings using the signature button at the top of the edit space.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:45, 12 January 2011 (EST)

::::There are too many creationists in the audience! A classic case of a whiny evolutionist. Were you personally trained to "defend" evolutionism by [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|this fellow?]][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:18, 12 January 2011 (EST)

== Fossil Record ==

The fossil record is not needed to prove the theory of evolution it stands on its own without the fossil record, in fact several animals such as soft bodied animals such as flatworms will not fossilize and leave fossil records, yet we know they exist and have existed in the past.

Many people simply do not understand what fossils tell us or what we can use them for. However to say they disprove the Theory of evolution is simply incorrect. After all even Gravity is just a theory

Separation of Pro/Anti Evolution.
My concern is that rather than detailing what constitutes Evolution and then later the criticisms of the theory, the form of the entire piece is about vaguely describing an evolutionary component and immediately refuting it as utter garbage and leaving it at that. Is it really so difficult to present one side without trashing it as soon as humanly possible. Also, Evolution being a key component in the development of racism is ludicrous. The Spanish Caste system was in existence long before the theory of evolution was introduced. I thought Conservapedia was about providing a place for truth, but what I see here is a place for people who only want the kind of truth that serves to reinforce their viewpoint. I fully support providing evidence which challenges the theory and yet I suppose giving Evolution fair representation is just a sign that I've been corrupted by liberal bias.
:Perhaps there is another way for you to contribute on this subject, but apart from this article. Try articles on natural selection, genetics, various plants and animals, geology, and so on, in which you can explain what main stream science says about them, as well as providing evidence refuting it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 10 February 2011 (EST)
::::[[Essay: As always, there is more work to be done|Evolutionist excusitis]] always happens when evidence is asked for. Please get a real worldview like biblical Christianity which [[Christian apologetics|has plenty of evidence to support it]] and not one you always have to make excuses for. As far as the history of racism in Europe, was racism solely the result of the Spanish Caste System or were there events contributing after? It seems to me as though you are offering a rather simplistic and inadequate commentary here. I would suggest reading material on [[Nazism]] and then contributing to that article. By the way, are you an atheist? If so, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is correct. Generally speaking, atheists such as as [[Richard Dawkins]], are rather weak when it comes to [[historiography]] as can be seen [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:39, 10 February 2011 (EST)
== Theory? ==

Evolution is most certainly a fact. --[[User:TheSensei|TheSensei]] 21:51, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:This is what's called an argument by assertion. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:53, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:A "fact" ... just like the "fact" of [[global warming]]? Sorry, declaring something a fact does not make it so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:04, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== "Through natural processes alone" vs. "Darwinism" ==

In the article's third paragraph, I noticed an incorrect assertion based on the results of a poll. The article states that "60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone." Just because someone believes that man did not evolve 100% naturally (evolution), doesn't mean that they believe evolution was 100% supernatural. It is possible that they could believe in both Darwinism and intelligent design. [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 21:40, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

:Darwinism is taught and believed without any "supernatural" intervention. Also, Darwinism directly conflicts with basic [[Christian]] principles, such as [[Jesus]] redeeming the original sin of [[Adam]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:As Mr. Schlafly said, most believers in Darwinism don't believe in intelligent design; most believers in Darwinism are atheists. Also, ''doesn't mean they believe evolution was 100% supernatural'' implies that they all believe in evolution in the first place. Do you deny that there are medical doctors that don't believe in evolution at all? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 09:39, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

== Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists ==

I think its unfortunate that despite the generally good quality of the rest of the article, the concluding section reads like it was written by a grade school student. The entire world (with the exclusion of the middle east) consumes alcohol in some form or another, simply drinking beer in a pub is not a sign of poor health. In addition, up to 50% of the U.S. can be considered overweight or obese, since the apparent prevalence of atheism (not self-described, but defined as without belief in a god or life spirit) in the U.S. is on the order of 10%, there are far more obese and overweight theists than atheists. This section as it stands right now reads like an indictment of PZMyers and should be moved to the PZMyers page. In any case, attacking the validity of the theory based on the health of the proponent is a clear ad hominem and should at the very least be revised, since it has no place in an otherwise serious and even-handed article on the theory of evolution. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 22:25, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
:::DenisTR, thank you for indicating that the vast bulk of the article was fair-minded. Secondly, nowhere does the article indicate that because PZ Myers has not done his best to act in accordance with the best information that medical science has made widely available, therefore evolution is false. Lastly, I am guessing you are not a big fan of the introductory picture for [[atheism|Conservapedia's atheism article]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:42, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
[[File:Baron2.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|225px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]
::::DenisTR, thanks for your input. I just added the following material to the Conservapedia evolution article: "In August 2009, PZ Myers led a group of over 300 atheist and agnostic students on a tour of the [[Creation Museum]].[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8280168] During the visit, Myers had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM VIDEO]" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:24, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
:::::::DenisTR, by the way, the above material concerning PZ Myers and the Creation Museum has now also been added to the [[Atheism]], [[Atheism and obesity]] and the [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]] article. Once again, thank you for your input. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:17, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 23

2012-09-12T20:53:12Z

Narrator: /* LRose's Response */

== Evolution not evidentially based and evolution as a social construct ==

Given that there is [[evolution|no real evidence for evolution]], I have decided to put together material for an upcoming Conservapedia article some of which will be incorporated into the evolution article which will partly reveal why there are so many [[Theories of evolution]]. The material I have gathered so far and am in the midst of fact checking is here: [[User:Conservative/EvolutionAsSocialConstruct]] The article will be given the title: [[Evolution as a Social Construct]]. I thought it would be a complementary article for Conservapedia's article: [[Causes of Atheism]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:17, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

:: Actually there is real evidence for evolution. You greatly underestimate the scientific method to propose that something without evidence could be considered a scientific theory under those rules.[[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:36, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::::Riddles, I suggest you read [http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#The_Issue_of_Whether_the_Evolutionary_Position_Qualifies_as_a_Scientific_Theory what Karl Popper wrote about the evolutionary paradigm concerning whether or not it is a theory (His subsequent actions were quite revealing as well).] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:54, 1 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Conservative, Popper was a great admirer of both Darwin and Darwinism. He also thought that metaphysics played an important role in enabling the production of testable theories. Whether Darwinism is seen as a method for producing scientific theories (which is what Popper meant by "metaphysical research programme") or a scientific theory itself, seems to be a very fine point: too fine for an introductory article.[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:04, 30 November 2009 (EST)
::::::Toffeeman, when you actually address the issue get back to me, but not before then. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:56, 1 December 2009 (EST)

== Quick Question... ==

I understand other points of view on evolution, and I've looked at the archive of this talk page, so before I open my mouth, I have a question:
This article, as well every other article on this wiki, is supposed to represent THE conservative point of view on evolution?
We all must acknowledge that different conservatives may know more or less than others, but their collective opinion is supposed to be presented in this article. Am I correct? [[User:Rustyfence|Rustyfence]] 00:47, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Please show us that the evolutionary position is a conservative position. You can start with the early church fathers and Moses. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:17, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Well, "THE" evolutionary position ISN'T a conservative position, all the conservatives I know and this page make that pretty clear. You know what, now that I think about it, I think this page is all good and representative of that standard, then. The numerous improvements I would suggest would not be appropriate for this wiki, because most conservatives don't know about them. I think the best thing I can do is support public knowledge of such topics elsewhere. If conservatives know about said suggestions, then said suggestions and conservative commentary would be appropriate. I have nothing to add to this article. Good luck on the article and God bless. [[User:Rustyfence|Rustyfence]] 16:54, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== The Farm-fox study ==

In the article you refer to a 40(?) year experiment in botany that failed, I was just wondering here if anyone has seen the farm-fox study of domestication which seems to directly contradict this, you can find it [http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/2510%20Spring%2009/Behavior%20Genetics/Farm-Fox%20Experiment.pdf[Here]] I am just posting this because you say you post facts, and it just seems that this article (evolution) is one that is missing many factual arguments. confirmation bias is a dangerous game, and while some people disagree with evolution if you really learn what it is you will see that it has no conflict with religion. It seems right now that most people who refuse to believe in evolution only have a rudimentary understanding of it. The "it's only a theory" seems to be another common strategy and this is invalid as well, theories in the scientific community are not like theories in real life, they are the highest honor bestowed upon a scientific thesis, and to tell you the truth there are fewer cracks in evolution than in newtons laws(a few of newtons laws have already been proven false). Arguments that it seems are being purposely ignored, this is one of the few articles here I have a big problem with so I figured I would offer some actual evidence to see if I can get it changed unlike most people who just come in here and act like a gibbering (deleted) about what they don't like. I would also like to point out that many of the "facts" like the distrust among doctors and the world public distrust of evolution is kinda [http://aysps.gsu.edu/econ/files/ECON_SustersicRebecca_Evolution_summer07.pdf[directly contradicted by this]]. other things like the Irreducible complexity theory are kinda [http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/K_HVrjKcvrU-irreducible-complexity-bacterial-flagellum-debunked.aspx[b.s. as well]]. just thought I would present actual information to attempt to get the article changed instead of coming in here like a gibbering moron and complaining.
:Dear Sev,
I'd like to comment on the Farm-Fox Experiment you linked to. Foxes and Dogs are closely related, so closely in fact that they may be able to interbreed. This is not surprising once you realize they are in fact two descendants of the single baramin 'dog-wolf-fox' that was taken onto Noah's Ark! The original couple had all the dog-wolf-fox information in his DNA, and this information was subsequently corrupted, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The foxes in the experiment you described show an example of micro-evolution, in which the 'dog' genes were selected among the population. No-one denies this can happen, and it is certainly not a proof for the theory of Evolution.
I hope my post helped you understand this issue.
Regards,
--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 09:52, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:Micro evolution is still evolution, evolution it self only denotes a change in a species over time. if the dog traits were continued to be selected for the domesticated fox could become a entire other species, and unable to reproduce with the native fox population, it would take a couple hundred years to achieve but even the most anti-evolutionary can agree that if you change genes enough eventually you will have an entirely different set of them. using your analogy and since any trait can be selected for and brought to any ridiculous lengths given the time and food, the same process that was used to domesticate the fox, could be used to say select for ear size and strength of the muscles in the ear in terriers, then selecting for light weight and low bone density one could theoretically make a terrier that is capable of flying using its ears. I realize that this is a totally asinine and over the top but it is only to demonstrate the concept, micro evolution is still evolution, no matter how small. macro-evolution is just micro evolution over a frankly ridiculous amount of time. Sorry if this makes no sense kinda in a hurry but would like a opinion on it if you did get its meaning, I'll be back soon and can fix it then if you did not.

:--[[User:Sev|Sev]]

== Irrational? ==

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[242]"

This isn't irrational, it's actually a valid comment on the scientific method. Science by definition searches for naturalistic explanations, if someone was able to propose a supernatural explanation (even if it were true) it would be outside the domain of Science. Again, this has nothing to do with "true vs. false"
ie, "god created life" may be true, but if it can't be verified naturally it isn't science.
Cheers
[[User:Tim111|Tim111]] 22:03, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Tim, please give a fairly exhaustive listing of definitions of science with the attending sources. Second, please do elaborate on why a valid definition of science would result in all physical data pointing to conclusion being ignored as I rightfully believe that claims should be adequately supported. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:19, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: The non-suspension of natural laws is a fundamental pillar of science. Since the god of the bible is apparently unrestrained by natural laws he is supernatural and therefore unsatisfactory as a scientific explanation of natural phenomena. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:07, 6 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::::::Jamesmackenzie, please show that the non-suspension of natural laws is a fundamental pillar of science. Argument by mere assertion is rather pointless. And last time I checked, the originator of the scientific method, [http://www.bartleby.com/3/1/16.html had a very dim view of atheism]. Of course, atheists believe that natural laws have never been suspended in history. Isn't that right? Now if you want to show that Bacon was an atheist or deist by all means do so, but I do not believe you can do that. It seems to me at this point that your alleged pillar has no foundation - especially when one looks at Bacon who originated the scientific method. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:25, 29 November 2009 (EST)
Allow me, if you would.
The scientific method:
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
http://kbagdanov.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/scientificmethod.jpg
There are more, but I'm going to presume you get the idea and move along.

The basis of the scientific method is the experiment. You form an idea. [Form hypothesis] You try something, and then try it again, and again [collecting data], until you see a pattern [analyze data]. Then you take that pattern and check it against your hypothesis [confirm or deny hypothesis], and if it doesn't match, you work on a new hypothesis and try again. When you find a working hypothesis, congratulations. You have something worth sharing. [Share results]

The problem is that using this method, you are assuming that today and yesterday and tomorrow are equivalent when you look for patterns. To make that assumption is completely equivalent to assuming no divine intervention for any given event witnessed and used as data. I'll go through a logic chain if you REALLY want it, but can you not see how this is the case already? EDIT: -Jones
::::Jones, an evolutionist using logic? Thanks for entertaining us with your dry humor. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:05, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Article appears to be non-neutral ==

I'm a conservative in most ways- but I do have a quick question- why does this article take God and Evolution and make them mutually exclusive? Evolution says nothing about God not existing- indeed- I cannot imagine a way that we could form without god's intervention. I support a theory known as guided evolution- where that while species did evolve and change overtime- god oversaw the whole process, guiding it into new directions. Just a thought. God bless! --[[User:Rockstone|Rockstone]] 22:17, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
::::Rockstone, you failed to provide any evidence for your hypothesis of guided evolution. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:11, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::[[Intelligent Design|This ought to be enough evidence, methinks]]. Cheers, [[User:Trustworthiness|Trustworthiness]] 03:11, 18 August 2009
::::::That only talks about the beginning of life, evolution is the genetic change in populations over generations via environmental factors and random mutations and in the case of theistic evolution, by a god [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:40, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== Some links need to be updated ==

Many in the "Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position" section. They currently go to redirect pages. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 21:00, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

== A bit misleading ==

"Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors which is an idea rejected by the current scientific community."

The comment is deliberately misleading. As also stated in [[Lamarck]]'s article (on this site), Lamarck proposed that animals acquire such traits through use over generations/lifetimes. The following is a bit more thorough: "Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has now been largely abandoned" ([http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html]).

NOTE: The misinformation in the article was posited due to a sentence taken out of place from the source cited in the article: [http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13567]

This is only one of several deliberating misleading comments present throughout; perhaps sites such as "medterms.com" are not the best choices as cogent sources.
::::Perhaps, you should also claim that the Conservapedia Pi article is misleading because it doesn't go far enough out to the right of the decimal point as far you wish concerning the value of [[Pi]]. In short, there is a difference between precision and being misleading. When you are done trying to create a tempest in a teapot, let me know. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:20, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

Another misleading aspect of the evolution page is quote mining. The Mark Ridley quote should include the beginning and the end of the quote. "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven." It could also include, "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)

"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

== a study: Morals decline and evolution, incorporate in article ==

Incorporate in article, A study: Morals decline and evolution: http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution
[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:31, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
::Correlation does not imply causation. If that were the case then the decline of pirates would be causing global warming [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:42, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::Riddles, please show us a culture where the evolutionary paradigm improve morals or was not deleterious to the morality of a culture. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:08, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

==A request for permission to use this article==

Hello, I found this page and the counter examples page whilst searching for material to help our children to get a balanced view of the topic. Here in Norway (and all of Scandinavia) the education system is VERY left-wing and atheist, and there is very little non-evolutionist information in Norwegian. Would it be OK if I translated some of your articles to pass on to the our young? By the time kids here have learned good English many have been indoctrinated in to the evolutionist world-view, so I would like to give them both sides of the arguement when they are still young.

I hope I can help you with other things on your excellent site. Trond Eirik [[User:TESvestad|TESvestad]] 16:22, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

: Yes, please do translate and use freely. Thanks for your interest and open-mindedness. I particularly like the [[Counterexamples to evolution]] and find it to be a good educational presentation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:29, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

::Hopefully you will give your young a balanced education and allow them the question both sources for and against evolution. Remind them that they should not make up their mind until they hear everything and that, no offense, even you could be wrong here. [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:46, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Or you could be wrong. All I've seen from you is not just a severe lack of ''proving'' evolution, but your constant talking of it in riddles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:18, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

== United States point of view ==
Dear co-workers. I'm not sure if I understood well, but I think it's a pity this article only gives an American poinst of view. According to the logo of this site this is logical, but I would appreciate it when is was also written in a more general point of view. Now there are a lot of data which only represent the situation in the USA, but maybe we can consider to add data of other countries. E.g. if the article mentions that 40% of the Americans see the Evolution theorue as true, why not also mention that 27% of the Turkish and 50% of the Rumanian does the same? Thanks [[User:Zenschaatser|Zenschaatser]] 08:53, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::The article mentions the UK as well. If you have data from other countries as well about how Darwinism is losing public support, please feel free to share this information. I do know that the Darwinism is appearing to lose public support in Australia since 1990 and that it has lost a considerable amount of public support in Turkey in recent times as well. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:01, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

== Question on Transitional Forms ==
It seems to me that if the theory of evolution were correct, then nearly every animal would be some kind of transitional form (apart from species that die out). Supposedly, I am a transitional form between my parents and my children. Theoretically, evidence of a lack of transitional forms could, and seems to often be taken to the extreme of requiring every minute change in an organism, or it is dismissed as incomplete. 1000 years from now, if one were to dig up my parents and my children, and conclude they inherited certain genetic variations from evolutionary pressure, someone with the "conservative point of view" would claim there was no transitional form, thus the two organisms were obviously not evidence of evolution. This article seems to lack any questioning of the extremes the idea of transitional forms is taken to by most religious scholars, nor does it show the increasing amount of evidence of actual transitional forms. I fear conservative thought buries itself in a hole when ardently supporting or opposing ideas because they have disagreements with small parts of the bible. The bible was written by men, and as the Bible clearly states, men are not perfect.
::::I noticed you did not have any actual evidence of evolutionary transitional forms supposedly created by macroevolution. By the way, the word Bible is is supposed to be capitalized (I am sure that this was a mere oversight by a scholar such as yourself). :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:16, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::Macro evolution is merely a label for species evolving into other species (which is basically "micro" evolution given enough time) Like the above poster stated, all creatures are transitional forms and the evidence is the actual creatures itself. If you were to look at a high definition digital picture of a rainbow, looking at a pixel and the one right next to it you wouldn't be able to notice the difference easily at all. However it is clear that as you go on a noticeable change begins to occur. This is evolution and "macro evolution" is when those creatures go from being red to noticeably orange.
::::::Always happy to educate people on evolution [[User:Riddles|Riddles]] 23:53, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Riddles, I believe [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118 you are mistaken] and if you check the [[evolution|Conservapedia evolution article]] you will find that creation scientists believe in speciation. I don't believe speciation could be considered large scale changes. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:27, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

==Interesting article==

Though someone might appreciate this: [http://creation.com/multiverse-theory Multiverse theory—unknown science or illogical raison d’être?] When someone is well adapted to its purpose, and able to adapt, it is easy to presume that is how it can to be.

BTW, the Bible speaks of "kinds", and Creationists believe in microevolution within such.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:53, 18 November 2009 (EST)

== Intellectuals Reference ==

Claiming Aristotle & Archimedes as evidence against Evolution is pretty silly considering they lived many, many years before Darwin. That's like saying gravity is unverifiable because Plato never wrote about it. I'm not attacking the whole article. Just that one point is a terrible argument.
::::Evolutionism was around before Darwin. Next time you comment on an article, you might want to read it first. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:05, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== Inclusion of Gallup Poll of "Scientists" Opinnions ==

Hi!

This is a well written article, with some really good links and references provided. After doing some research, I wanted permission to include a reference to another poll in the opening paragraphs.

Just below the paragraph containing the well referenced mentions of polls on American citizen's acceptance of evolution, and the opinions of medical doctors, I would like to include a reference to the 1997 Gallup poll on "scientists" acceptance of evolution.

The results show that while a near majority of the public are creationist, only 5% of scientists are. 40% of scientists believe in "God-Guided" Evolution, and 55% accept an entirely naturalistic theory of evolution.

There is a breakdown of the study here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm (Also, I assume it could be accessed from Gallup itself, though I can't work out how. Perhaps this information would be stored in a public library?)

Since this site is all about presenting the facts, and this article already makes significant use of polls to demonstrate those facts, I feel this is an appropriate addition to this article.

Thanks for your time, and I hope you'll include my suggestion! I put alot of reasearch into it.

Lex [[User:LRose|LRose]] 22:04, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::::Lex, the study you cited is already in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:04, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== Hitler and Evolution ==

I myself have read Mein Kampf, and I can assure you that Hitler did not believe in evolution. Hitler believed in divine creation and was quite religious. Example: Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Ch. 10.

It is terribly biased to say Hitler killed people because he was an atheist when he himself claims to be a theist. I suggest the Hitler section be removed, or be heavily revamped. Thanks for your time.

=== LRose's Response ===
Hi, I don't know who wrote the above post, but this is my response!

Actually, there is evidence in ''Mein Kampf'' that Hitler, like most leaders of the time (even those professing Christian faith), did subscribe to the theory of evolution. He invoked a simplistic understanding of the theory to justify his hatred of the Jews. In ''Mein Kampf'', Hitler uses Evolution to try and argue that the Jews were a different species, and thus the German people shouldn’t mate with them:

<blockquote>
“If '''Nature''' does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an '''evolutionary''' higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.“
Chapter XI Race & People

</blockquote>
<blockquote>

“Unconsciously his instinct will submit to the knowledge that the preservation of the species, even at the cost of the individual life, is a primal necessity and he will protest against the fantasies of pacifist ranters, who in reality are nothing better than cowardly egoists, even though camouflaged, who contradict the laws of human development. For it is a necessity of human '''evolution''' that the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favor of the common weal, and that he should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to know better than '''Nature''' and who have the impudence to criticize her decrees.“
Chapter XI Race & People
</blockquote>

(Sorry for not including page references, I was using this online translation of ''Mein Kampf'': http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt)

Now, I don’t speak German, so I couldn’t read the original. It is possible the word here translated as “evolution” comes from a different German word, which does not have the same scientific meaning.

However, even so, it’s clear that Hitler is using arguments of natural superiority to justify his racism.

But He also used arguments from faith, referring to God, Creation, and suggesting the Jews are somehow the work of the Devil.

<blockquote>
“Of course, one doesn't discuss such a question with the Jews, because they are the modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of '''God's''' image in''' His creation'''.“
Chapter XI War Propaganda
</blockquote>

Here, he argues that the Germans were the ones created in the image of God, and breeding with the Jews will corrupt them: <blockquote>
“for all the Jewish daughters of the department store proprietors are looked upon as eligible mates to co-operate in propagating '''His Lordship's stock'''.”
Chapter X Why The Second Reich Collapsed
</blockquote>

Here he talks of Jesus, and argues that Jesus was anti-semetic:
<blockquote>
And the '''Founder of Christianity''' made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time '''Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews''';
</blockquote>

Clearly, Hitler had a horribly, offensive, perverted understanding of the Gospel!!! It's revolting to even read it!!

But the point is, he used Christianity to justify his actions. Thus, the Evolutionists can make the exact same arguments against us, as we make against them.

So, anytime we say that the Holocaust was a “social effect of Evolution” they’re just going to say that it was a “social effect of Christianity”.

My Conclusion:

It’s clear from ''Mein Kampf'' that Hitler was nothing more than a nut job opportunist. He claimed to believe in anything that supported his own crazy racism.

I would also argue that we should remove the section on Hitlet’s belief’s in evolution. Because I would hate to go to Wikipedia, or some liberal site, and see them claiming that Hitler was a Christian, and it was his belief in Christianity that lead to the Holocaust.

I believe in honest debate. And to me, it’s dishonest to say that Hitler was an Evolutionist. He was no more and Evolutionist, than he was a Christian.

== Evolution Is Not Fundamentally Violent; Christianity Is ==

I would like to point out an incontrivertible fact:

Adolf Hitler regularly made appeals to God in Mein Kampf, calling upon Him to support his 'struggle' to 'rid the world of Jews'. I have read Mein Kampf, and studied Hitler's life, and have noted that Hitler's Christianity cannot be denied. He was an avid believer. However, I admit that many of his claims distorted fundamental Biblical teachings, though not by a wide margin, and his interpretation of the Bible was often based on desire, as opposed to reality. A caveat to this however was that much of what he wrote of, drawn from the Bible, in order to support his beliefs, was not distorted, and was impirically anti-semetic also.

As [[Christopher Hitchens]] points out in his book: [[god Is Not Great]], Mein Kampf was published at a time when the Catholic church was banning books at will, if they even slightly opposed orthodox Christian theological teachings, as presented by Roman Catholicism.
Therefore, given the fact that the Pope (who definitely was aware of, and did read) Mein Kampf, chose '''NOT''' to ban it, I would suggest that this implies - or, indeed, insists - that the book was met with approval by the Papacy.
As I have noted, Hitler called upon God - a Christian God - to support him in his efforts (what is written in Mein Kampf certainly does not suggest a holocaust is inconceivable to Hitler) and therefore, one would assume that if the Pope read it, he would be thoroughly incensed by it. Because the Pope read it, and didn't take action (any at all!) what are we to think but that he supported Adolf's desire to rid the world of so called 'Christ-killers'? (I personally would call God responsible for the death of Jesus Christ - if He exists, and there is no reason to assume He does.)

As for the matter of Hitler being an evolutionist, he certainly was aware of the theory, and adhered to it somewhat, but, just as I have said he did of Christian theology and doctrine, (which, if taken fundamentally - the only logicial way to do so - would itself demand the essential murder of millions of women by banning contraceptives and causing AIDS to flourish in Africa) he also warped the theories of Charles Darwin to conform to his own murderous desires. What Hitler wrote of was a 'will of nature', and that is something which implies that nature can make conscious decisions, while humanity is incapable of choosing what to do and what not to do for itself. This is not a fundamental Darwinist theory. Darwinism explains the facts about our origins. It does not limit, through this, our potential to go beyond them. Such people as Hitler, and the religious apologists on this site, as well as the person above me, who, in a desperate attempt to seem neutral, has blindfolded his or herself to numerous facts, vindicate more than anything else, Darwin's claim that:

"Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible scar of his lowly origin."

- Lex [[User:LRose|LRose]] 21:56, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Do you also deny that [[Josef Mengele]] was an evolutionist?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::Does it matter if he was an atheist? This post is bout Hitler, not that guy. Use him if you want, and if he was an evolutionary atheist, but he is not the same person as Hitler. Your argument is invalid. -Jones
::::Jones, were [[Hitler]] and [[Josef Mengele]] both Nazis and did they both believe in Nazi evolutionary racist ideology? If you evidence to the contrary Conservapedia would be most indebted to you if you shared it. I was curious whether or not you were very knowledgeable about this subject matter and I also wanted to know if your logic was unimpeachable. Of course, if you were merely a liberal deceitfully and illogically spouting off of about matters you know very little about, it will soon become apparent. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:13, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== ERV's ==

ERV's alone put evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvF4q88YODU Endogenous Retroviruses: Life-Cycle and Ancestral Implications]

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8kDzftu2w4 Endogenous Retroviruses: The Three Layers of ERV Evidence for Common Ancestry]
:::[[Endogenous retrovirus|Are you aware of any arguments against ERV's by creation scientists]]? If so, what are they? "The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes to examine him." - King [[Solomon]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:01, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::What is a creation scientist? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 01:28, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::Hectoruribe, have you ever heard of search engines? They are really great things that enable you to answer very simple questions yourself. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:57, 17 April 2010 (EDT)
::::::::In fact, just search Conservapedia. We have an article on [[creation science]] that explains it quite well. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 16:59, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

== evolution and debate ==

evolution and debate: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html Research the facts surrounding the debate and cite it in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:08, 1 January 2010 (EST)

== climategate and darwin doubting ==

Climategate and darwin doubting: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34935 Incorporate in the article perhaps. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:12, 1 January 2010 (EST)

== Definition ==

I'd just like to suggest that the definition of evolution from Merriam-Webster be changed to " a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory" I think that this would be more accurate, and could reduce the possibilty of accusations of "picking and choosing" --[[User:LucyJ|LucyJ]] 16:52, 22 February 2010 (EST)
::::Thanks, I put a .... after the Webster citation to be more precise/accurate. I thought the "also" addition didn't really add that much plus it would be less favorable in terms of the sentence's flow. The detractors of the evolutionary paradigm often assert that the evolutionary paradigm is "just a theory" or merely a hypothesis. Regardless, Webster does not consider the evolutionary paradigm to be a scientific law. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:14, 8 March 2010 (EST)

== Lamarckism ==

re: Lamarckism

Has anyone followed what is going on within the evolutionary community regarding this material: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong Why Everything You Have Been Told About Evolution is Wrong][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:34, 1 April 2010 (EDT)

== Terribly biased? ==

Why does the entire article talk about evolution as if it is untrue when it is just valid as cell theory plate tectonic theory? [[User:Bradology|Bradology]] 10:17, 2 April 2010 (EDT)
::::Bradology, please let us know when you intend to stop engaging in [http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html Bulverism] and start producing valid evidence for the evolutionary paradigm. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:52, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

== Regarding the cross burning ==

David Duke is a creationist. The KKK platform is that the "laws of our creator" should be used. While you can certainly argue convincingly that they are not following the bible closely I do not think you can argue that a political party that is fighting to remove Darwin from biology books is following an evolutionary ideology. --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 16:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
::::Please feel free to provide convincing evidence that adequately addresses the footnoted material I provided. I have no desire to engage in dueling monologues. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:28, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

== Bias in Article ==

Bias in general is considered to be anything that influences one's behavior. Having a picture of Hitler at the very beginning of the article is clearly a sample of bias in this sense. Hitler is one of the most hated individuals to have ever lived, and understandably so. Showing an image of him at the beginning of the article gives any reader a predisposition to what they are about to read, as their emotional response will already have begun. As stated in earlier discussions, Hitler cannot simply be labeled an evolutionist. To associate him with evolution at the beginning of the article gives any reader a different view on what they might believe otherwise. Removing this picture as well as his quote, or at least placing it later in the article would resolve this. {{Unsigned | User:NewThought}}
:To deny Hitler was an evolutionist is to deny the reason he murdered over 6 million people. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:22, 28 April 2010 (EDT)
::Not the only reason, mind you, but the most important and influential reason nonetheless. [[User:DavidBG|[[User:DavidBG]]]] 13:45, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::User NewThought, if you don't want web pages to have an effect on your behavior or beliefs, I suggest you close your eyes after clicking on a link and also put your fingers in your ears just in case there is audio. Secondly, you have to better than merely state your positions if you want there to be changes, you have to make a good case for any changes.
*Richard Weikart, ''Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress'' ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7
*Richard Weikart, ''From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany'' ISBN 9781403972019 [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:52, 8 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lysenkoism ==

There should be a link to [[Lysenkoism]] when the article mentions that pseudo-science. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:13, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:There already is. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 16:42, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

----

I would like to edit the quote of Dawnin in a letter to Gray [2]. It is wrongly quoted and is a fragmented sentence. The whole sentence is "It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
::::::Please elaborate on why you allege that it is wrongly quoted. By the way, are you an [[atheism|atheist]]? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:54, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Conservative, whether this user is atheist or not has nothing to do with the question. He's calling you out for quote-mining Darwin.
:::::::Oh, and user who left no signature—I wouldn't expect this article to be unlocked ever. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 13:03, 8 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::No real evidence was given for the quote mining allegation which I thought was quite unreasonable. I have found that atheists and evolutionists often engage in bluffing as far as their allegations and when you call their bluff no evidence is given by them for their allegations. Please read this article: http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Atheisms-house-of-cards-Part-3 Resident Transfan, are you an atheist? If you are an atheists, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:22, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Why liberals cannot point out factual errors ==

This article is almost entirely constructed of quotes. The only thing that the article says for the most part is that Person A said "B" and person C said "D" and the rest is made up of broad generalizations that aren't directly reliant on facts. A challenge could be raised that Person A knows nothing about subject B or that source D is biased in such a way as to compromise reliability but those wouldn't be direct challenges to the factual accuracy of the article. --[[User:AbbieM|AbbieM]] 18:31, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
::::Could you please do us a favor and give us a close percentage of content that is quotes and break it down by quotes from evolutionists and quotes from creation scientists. Also, how many of the footnoted sources did you read? Lastly, can you definitively show that the quotes were factually incorrect in terms of what they asserted (because I can see you did not do that)? By the way Abbie, are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::It should be 'an atheist', not 'an atheists'. I appreciate the copy-and-paste message, however, and will be posting an essay on this in the near future.[[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:27, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::Alright, I've gone through the article and looked at quotes, dividing them into three categories. There are quotes from an Evolutionary point of view, quotes from a Creationist point of view, and quotes that are neutral - a news corporation reporting statistics, for example, would fall under this category. I determined the following percentages by the total number of words.

:::::Here's what I found: Approximately 45% of the article is comprised of quotes. The article itself contains just under 14,000 words, and of those just over 6,000 are quotes. 2400 words are from Evolution supporters, 3150 words are from Creationists, and 650 are from neutral sources (approximately). This means that approximately 17% of the article is comprised of quotes from Evolutionists, 23% from Creationists, and nearly 5% from neutral sources. That means 39% of the actual quotes are from Evolutionists, 51% from Creationists, and about 10% from neutral sources. This was all done by the number of words, not characters. Frankly, I find this percentage to be drastically high. For one thing, should Evolution not be better represented in its own article than Creationism? That is to say, should intellectually honest writers include more quotes from Creationists than Evolutionists in an Evolution article? Furthermore, the Evolution quotes that are included are, practically without exception, cherry-picked and taken out of context. Even in the sources from which they derive, they are rarely given appropriate context. This is a degree of laziness that should only be associated with liberals. We conservatives ought to be more up-to-point.

:::::Also, this entire article reeks of liberal wordiness. Does the article truly need to be this long? Perhaps a single, shorter page should be present to define Evolution, then we could have one page for those who support evolution, and another page for quotes/articles/criticisms of Evolution. That seems the best way to chop this article down to size.[[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 16:46, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::::: Jacob, are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? Secondly, please put your quote claim statistics in a Excel or Open Office spreadsheet and post it somewhere for verification purposes. Then, please provide proof and evidence concerning each quote you allege to be in error. Lastly, evolutionism is so flagrantly in error that the article is concise. If we were to put the myriad of ways that evolutionism is errant, illogical, wicked and foolish; it would take many sets of CDs to do it justice. We just did our small part to offer something more concise. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:46, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::So, JacobP, the article is completely and totally wrong, and that is based solely on the ''number of words'' in the article? Golly gee...maybe the Bible is wrong because there's too many books in it; maybe the Declaration of Independence is wrong because Jefferson didn't format it properly; maybe the Constitution is wrong because a spell-check wasn't done on it; maybe ''Huckleberry Finn'' is wrong because Twain didn't check with the local school board first. Or maybe, JacobP, it is ''your logic that is wrong''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:45, 4 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::I was told that my "JacobP" username was too similar to another users', so this is "JacobP" under a new username, "JacobPope14", the number being chosen at random. Now, to answer your question, I am not an atheist nor, if I were an atheist, would I claim to have 'proof' of atheism. As a Christian, I do not claim to have proof of Christianity either. My beliefs are not based on rational thought, but on faith, as is the intention of religion.
::::::::::However, regarding the verification of my study, where would you like me to post this information? Can you not merely read through the article, highlight all material that is a quotation, and compare the number of words to verify what the user above was stating? The article is very heavily comprised of quoted material. As a tabloid, perhaps, this would be appropriate, but I think more time ought to be dedicated to rewriting this article with factual information regarding the criticisms of Atheistic Evolutionary Thought, or AET, as I call it. While I do not doubt the credentials of the many people quoted, I highly doubt that any of them share completely identical views on the subject matter, so it may not be appropriate to compose an article that is very near to being more quotes than information itself.
:::::::::::Also, regarding Karajou, I never made a claim that the article was factually errant. I merely stated that it was wordy, taking up a large amount of space to convey a very small amount of actual information. My reference to 'number of words' was an admission to the fact that when I took a comparison of the article - breaking it down into quotes from Evolutionists, Creationists, and neutral sources - I used 'words' as opposed to 'number of quotes' or perhaps 'letters' when I ran the numbers. I find it rather odd that you would so readily attack another Conservative for what I can only guess is an assumption that I have liberal ideas, which I assure you is not the case. I merely want this article to be as factually accurate, concise, and accessible as possible to readers. Are those not admirable goals? [[User:JacobPope14|JacobPope14]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::::Jacob, I am sorry to hear that your beliefs do not have any basis in rational thought. Are you sure you are not an atheist? The apostles certainly appealed to being eyewitnesses and the Bible in Romans rightly declares that the creation testifies to the existence of God (Rom 1:20). Lastly, as far as your alleged study, there are plenty of free places to post material on the internet.(blogspot, etc. ). [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:56, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

== Why is user [[User:Conservative|conservative]] the only person allowed to edit this article? ==

I assume a few other admins are also allowed to but this article is pretty much completely written by [[User:Conservative|conservative]]. That doesn't seem fair at all. Isn't the whole point of a wiki to allow lots of other people to pitch in on it? How do we know who this [[User:Conservative|conservative]] person is, and how do we know they have the credentials to write an entire article on evolution accurately? It seems completely ridiculous to me that you guys block out everyone except for this one person on the subject of evolution. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 19:45, 29 July (CST)
:And you are...? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:49, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
::Someone who reads this from time to time. But my point still stands. How is it fair to let only one person contribute to this article? Considering how much of this article focuses on creationists being silenced and censored in much of the media, you would think that this place, of all places, would welcome the input of others. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 20:36, 29 July (CST)
:::If the input is concerned with a theory, then I would welcome it; but if the input pushes evolution as "fact" then we won't allow it. We've had several members who tried ''forcing'' that viewpoint on us, ''forcing'' the "Bible-is-a-fairy-tale" opinion, ''forcing'' their own religious beliefs on this site. Didn't work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:50, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying you should allow the "Bible-is-a-fairy-tale" opinion at all. What I'm concerned about is that even if someone wants to add their own creationist/ID material to this article, they can't. The very most I'm guessing they could do is add it to the talk page and let conservative approve it. I don't mean to say anything bad about conservative but why should we leave those decisions SOLELY up to him/her for this one article? If you only let one person write an article on the entire subject of evolution it's bound to have some pretty major flaws. I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous how restricted this article is. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 11:18, 30 July (CST)

::::: A tiny percentage of articles on this site are locked (and later unlocked) due to vandalism. No locking is permanent, and any editor can earn administrative privileges through merit, which gives that editor the power to edit any page. Also, as you suggest, suggested edits to a locked page can always be posted on the talk page. So there are several ways that any editor can contribute to any page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:31, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
[[File:Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.jpg|thumbnail|right|275px|'''<big>[[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]</big>''' ]]
::::::::Karajou, thanks for the laugh. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:26, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
Has any one here even read any of Charles Darwin's books? Or do you just google, cut and paste?
[[User:Tbunton|Tbunton]] 08:26, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:Yes, I have Darwin's ''Origin of Species'' and ''Decent of Man'' in my house, part of Britannica's ''Great Books of the Western World'', published in 1991, etc etc. And if you look at many college essays or websites devoted to the ''support'' of evolution, you will find evidence of people who "just google, cut and paste." Like those above, you're playing the "evo-is-fact" game without bothering to even creak open your mind just for a little bit to see that what we present are the real facts of the matter. You learn more if you open your mind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:24, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design.[1] In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."[2][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:15, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why do we have three statistics about medical doctors in the opening section? ==

Medical doctors are not taught anything about evolution in school, nor are they required to know anything about it to practice. They are not experts in the field any more than computer scientists or waitresses. The three different statistics about medical doctors in the article just make it look bad, sort of... desperate. Maybe some statistics about biologists would be good instead? At least some kind of scientist.
:::Are you claiming that [http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-science.shtml medical science] is not a science? And are you claiming that medical science does not utilize biology? If so, why? Lastly, you have not shown that macroevolution has existed or does exist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:23, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
::::Evolutionists often claim that the applied science of medicine depends on evolution because it is derived from biology. Therefore, the explicit beliefs of medical doctors is certainly relevant.--[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:35, 31 August 2010 (EDT)

== Poe's Law Talk Page ==

When I clicked on the Talk page for [[Poe's Law]], I was redirected to the page on Evolution. Why is that?

Also, in regards to the Poe's Law page itself, why is it filled with material regarding Creationism, even though Poe's Law is not about Creationism? --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 17:19, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
:::JohnLee, please provide evidence and further explanation concerning your contentions about Poe's Law and creationism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:40, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

== genome and the evolutionary paradigm ==

Excellent research re: genome and the evolutionary paradigm: http://creation.com/genome-mania [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:41, 16 October 2010 (EDT)
==Suggested addition==

I would like to add some further points from Dr Behe's later book ''[[the Edge of Evolution]]'' to the section "Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position", specifically regarding how Dr Behe empirically proved that ''even if'' we accepted the huge assumptions made by evolutionists, ''their very own theory'' cannot account for the diversity of life we currently see. I guess this article is locked as it was a target for atheist trolls, so if it cannot be unlocked perhaps an administrator could add some more info regarding evolutionists lack of any answers to Dr Behe's findings? [[User:PhilipM|PhilipM]] 17:27, 18 November 2010 (EST)
:::Write up some material and post it here. We can stick it in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:29, 1 December 2010 (EST)

=A quote out of context=
Reference 262, quoting Eugenie Scott, is out of context and does not reflect the message of the general article. [[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 20:54, 30 December 2010 (EST)

:You have to prove your argument much better than that if you want to persuade anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::Mr. Schlafly, you beat me to it! AnaC, my comment was going to be similar to the above comment, if you wonder why I post no reply but indicate so on your talk page. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:17, 30 December 2010 (EST)
 
After reading the entire article, I came to the conclusion that the article points out several different reasons extraneous to the actual ideas being presented that would suggest a tilt in favor of the creationist discussion

Scott states:
""What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at
the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a
religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship.
That's the first problem. '''The audience that is most anxious to
'''come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that
'''supports the creationist.''' In the comparatively rare situation
where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of
good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the
audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercize every
effort to turn out their crowd."

The author also talks about debate format as a possible cause:
"The goal of a debate (I assume) is to
teach the audience something about evolution and the nature of
science. This is possible in a debate format, but '''it is difficult
'''to do well, because it is not easy to do quickly.
....
How long does it take to straighten out your audience on this
matter? The creationist has made a simple declarative sentence,
and '''you have to deal with not an easily-grasped factual error, but
'''a logical error and a methodological error, which will take you far
'''longer to explain.''' As I was writing this, a community college
teacher called to tell me she had trouble convincing her students
they were made out of smaller parts! Now maybe not all audiences
are at such a primitive level that they don't even accept cell
theory, but given the fact that your opponent just has to say, "It
didn't happen" (i.e., "there are no transitional forms",
"radiometric dating doesn't work," etc.) means '''you have a bunch
'''more talking to do from the get-go'''."
.....
'''I have no objection, by the way, to appearing on radio and TV with
'''creationists, and have done so many times.''' In this format, it is
possible to have some sort of point-counterpoint which is (though
it seems odd to say it) not possible in a formal debate format. On
the radio, I have been able to stop Gish, et al, and say, "Wait a
minute, if X is so, then wouldn't you expect Y?" or something
similar, and show that their "model" is faulty. But in a debate,
the evolutionist has to shut up while the creationist gallups
along, spewing out nonsense with every paragraph.

And finally, the author suggests a method for dealing with this format flaw:
With this format, the audience is given digestable bits of
information and is not overwhelmed by a barrage of impossible-to-
answer nonsense. The evolutionist at least has a fighting chance
to teach something about science and evolution.

'''Of course, whenever the ICR has been presented this option, they
'''have refused to debate.

It seems to me that way that the quote was used, it was meant to support the view that evolutionists do not want to debate out of the perceived inadequacy of their own arguments, but the author states that it is because of the structural flaws of the debate itself. The author states in the essay that the debater and his supporters think he did a good job, so in the end both parties think they did well, only that, according to the author, the creationist is perceived to have won because he has a lot more support from the audience.

Seen in this context, it would be more useful to use a different quote to support the point of view, since the author is not sincere in his expression that creationists win the arguments. [[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 22:51, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:But if we recruited heavily, without financial incentives and the like that are normally presented at scientific conferences (no need to hide it, I've seen the same actions taken at financial conferences) and with simply word of mouth and such, I highly doubt we'd have any tangible turn out or visible support if our beliefs were without merit. That's basic psychology and really just common sense, wouldn't you agree? While evolutionists and other such members of the "scientific community" need financial incentives, the promise of glory upon publication in like-minded journals, etc, we don't have this receptive atmosphere. Rather, we have only the weight of our arguments to persuade people. Perhaps this and not the "heavy recruitment" (which the author you mention, interestingly enough, ''does not'' detail in any way) is the reason for our support? Did that possibility occur to you? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 23:11, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::I do not understand what you are trying to say. I am simply quoting the author, and that is what he claimed--I have no knowledge of whether his claims are true nor the implications they may have if they were (or were not), nor do I know the motivations of the people who do go to the debates. But in any case, if true, the numbers would skew the result, regardless of the method of recruitment.[[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 23:28, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:::My apologies if I wasn't entirely clear. My reasoning is this: the simple fact that, from personal experience, audiences that share are beliefs have no additional incentive, outside of hearing them validated, to come to such a debate, while evolutionists and other followers of Scott most likely ''do'' have additional incentives, whether they be financial, extra credit in classes, etc. The fact that in spite of this difference, our support vastly outnumbers all other groups combined at such debate, in essence makes the level of recruitment irrelevant. Also, keep in mind that Eugenie Scott is one of our loudest and most vociferous critics. I trust that you're aware of her "participation" in the problems in Dover, where an issue that simply did not concern her suddenly became her business? Interestingly enough, she immediately published a book using her newfound publicity. Do my previous comments about entering a debate for financial incentive seem more clear with that example? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 23:38, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::::I do not know anything about the author, nor what she has chosen to do with her life. You stated that "The fact that in spite of this difference, our support vastly outnumbers all other groups combined at such debate, in essence makes the level of recruitment irrelevant.", which I do not understand. I do believe that moral conviction is a much stronger motivator than any financial gain. From my experience, spiritual motivation is one of the strongest motivators that exists. However, I do not understand how this pertains to the fact that the author did not mean to "confess" that creationists win debates, since she does not believe that they were playing fair. The article does not address this, and gives the impression that this is what the author truly believes.[[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 23:53, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:::::I don't have time at the moment to respond to this immediately as I'm on my way out the door, but if you have any pressing questions, you can email me (tyler.zoran@gmail.com, it's also on my user page) and I'll address them ASAP in the morning. Otherwise, I'll try to respond here tomorrow. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 00:00, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::::::In the meantime, though, research Eugenie Scott a bit more if you can. You'll find it very interesting, especially when you realize the perspective that influences everything she does. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 00:01, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Experiments on Evolution the article states: The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.[11][12]

However this has indeed been observed in nature and experiments demonstrating evolution have been performed in a laboratory, such as Richard Lenski's bacterial studies. Lenski has made all his strains available and it would only be appropriate to repeat the experiments and find flaws in them before dismissing them outright.

: You can't be serious. If that research paper had been submitted to me by a college student, then I probably would have returned it ungraded for reasons explained long ago (and still available) on this website. (Also, please sign your postings using the signature button at the top of the edit space.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:45, 12 January 2011 (EST)

::::There are too many creationists in the audience! A classic case of a whiny evolutionist. Were you personally trained to "defend" evolutionism by [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|this fellow?]][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:18, 12 January 2011 (EST)

== Fossil Record ==

The fossil record is not needed to prove the theory of evolution it stands on its own without the fossil record, in fact several animals such as soft bodied animals such as flatworms will not fossilize and leave fossil records, yet we know they exist and have existed in the past.

Many people simply do not understand what fossils tell us or what we can use them for. However to say they disprove the Theory of evolution is simply incorrect. After all even Gravity is just a theory

Separation of Pro/Anti Evolution.
My concern is that rather than detailing what constitutes Evolution and then later the criticisms of the theory, the form of the entire piece is about vaguely describing an evolutionary component and immediately refuting it as utter garbage and leaving it at that. Is it really so difficult to present one side without trashing it as soon as humanly possible. Also, Evolution being a key component in the development of racism is ludicrous. The Spanish Caste system was in existence long before the theory of evolution was introduced. I thought Conservapedia was about providing a place for truth, but what I see here is a place for people who only want the kind of truth that serves to reinforce their viewpoint. I fully support providing evidence which challenges the theory and yet I suppose giving Evolution fair representation is just a sign that I've been corrupted by liberal bias.
:Perhaps there is another way for you to contribute on this subject, but apart from this article. Try articles on natural selection, genetics, various plants and animals, geology, and so on, in which you can explain what main stream science says about them, as well as providing evidence refuting it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 10 February 2011 (EST)
::::[[Essay: As always, there is more work to be done|Evolutionist excusitis]] always happens when evidence is asked for. Please get a real worldview like biblical Christianity which [[Christian apologetics|has plenty of evidence to support it]] and not one you always have to make excuses for. As far as the history of racism in Europe, was racism solely the result of the Spanish Caste System or were there events contributing after? It seems to me as though you are offering a rather simplistic and inadequate commentary here. I would suggest reading material on [[Nazism]] and then contributing to that article. By the way, are you an atheist? If so, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is correct. Generally speaking, atheists such as as [[Richard Dawkins]], are rather weak when it comes to [[historiography]] as can be seen [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:39, 10 February 2011 (EST)
== Theory? ==

Evolution is most certainly a fact. --[[User:TheSensei|TheSensei]] 21:51, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:This is what's called an argument by assertion. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:53, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:A "fact" ... just like the "fact" of [[global warming]]? Sorry, declaring something a fact does not make it so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:04, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== "Through natural processes alone" vs. "Darwinism" ==

In the article's third paragraph, I noticed an incorrect assertion based on the results of a poll. The article states that "60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone." Just because someone believes that man did not evolve 100% naturally (evolution), doesn't mean that they believe evolution was 100% supernatural. It is possible that they could believe in both Darwinism and intelligent design. [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 21:40, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

:Darwinism is taught and believed without any "supernatural" intervention. Also, Darwinism directly conflicts with basic [[Christian]] principles, such as [[Jesus]] redeeming the original sin of [[Adam]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:As Mr. Schlafly said, most believers in Darwinism don't believe in intelligent design; most believers in Darwinism are atheists. Also, ''doesn't mean they believe evolution was 100% supernatural'' implies that they all believe in evolution in the first place. Do you deny that there are medical doctors that don't believe in evolution at all? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 09:39, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

== Poor health practices of some notable evolutionists ==

I think its unfortunate that despite the generally good quality of the rest of the article, the concluding section reads like it was written by a grade school student. The entire world (with the exclusion of the middle east) consumes alcohol in some form or another, simply drinking beer in a pub is not a sign of poor health. In addition, up to 50% of the U.S. can be considered overweight or obese, since the apparent prevalence of atheism (not self-described, but defined as without belief in a god or life spirit) in the U.S. is on the order of 10%, there are far more obese and overweight theists than atheists. This section as it stands right now reads like an indictment of PZMyers and should be moved to the PZMyers page. In any case, attacking the validity of the theory based on the health of the proponent is a clear ad hominem and should at the very least be revised, since it has no place in an otherwise serious and even-handed article on the theory of evolution. [[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 22:25, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
:::DenisTR, thank you for indicating that the vast bulk of the article was fair-minded. Secondly, nowhere does the article indicate that because PZ Myers has not done his best to act in accordance with the best information that medical science has made widely available, therefore evolution is false. Lastly, I am guessing you are not a big fan of the introductory picture for [[atheism|Conservapedia's atheism article]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:42, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
[[File:Baron2.jpg|thumb|alt=atheism|right|225px|[[Paul-Henri Thiry]], Baron d'Holbach (1723 - 1789) was an early advocate of [[atheism]] in [[Europe]].]]
::::DenisTR, thanks for your input. I just added the following material to the Conservapedia evolution article: "In August 2009, PZ Myers led a group of over 300 atheist and agnostic students on a tour of the [[Creation Museum]].[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8280168] During the visit, Myers had noticeably greater difficulty than others climbing on and off a dinosaur model due to the fact that he was overweight and out of shape.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM VIDEO]" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:24, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
:::::::DenisTR, by the way, the above material concerning PZ Myers and the Creation Museum has now also been added to the [[Atheism]], [[Atheism and obesity]] and the [[Atheism and Mental and Physical Health]] article. Once again, thank you for your input. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:17, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Evolution

2012-09-12T20:18:37Z

Narrator:

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! ==
[[File:Increasing.JPG|150px|right]]
'''American [[young earth creationism]] increased in the last two years - Gallup survey.''' [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and other efforts of creationists are working!.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html]

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Whereas I, a different user, though I am Christian, see no problem with evolution, and honestly trust science more than certain political pundits and loudmouths.

And I, another user, though I am an agnostic (however, I am inclined more towards atheism than ever due to articles like this) understand that evolution is a flawless theory. It is scientific fact, a certainty, that unnerves me as much as it does anyone else - and yet it is undeniably a fact because there is a huge body of evidence supporting it. This body of evidence is readily available in brilliant books that you can borrow from your local library, and impossible, if understood, to contradict (using logic and reason). It makes me sad to see debates raging on on this subject when the matter has long since been settled. Evoltuion is proven by the fossil record, without exception; by the science of genetics, without exception; it is actually played out visibly if you care to study the development of a human embryo; it sheds light (though of course, cannot be proven, as that would be a cyclical arguement) by the many oddities that plague human anatomy, such as vestigial tails, redundant organs, and certain instincts (like that twitch you feel when you are falling asleep and your arm falls: that is a best explained as remnant of a trait our ancestors developed to prevent themselves falling out trees). The often quoted existence of a 'missing link' is also imaginary, for reasons that would become evident to people who actually studied the facts of this issue. I am certain that every creationist, and evolution denier, in fact, every non ultra-Darwinist, has not thoroughly researched the topic. Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins provide the most accurate overview of evolution in the scientific world. There is literally no reason to dis-believe in evolution, or even to believe in it. This is because it is not a question of belief. It has been proven. Therefore one does not need belief to realise it is true.

== Issues ==
There are a few things, such as in the opening that isn't accurate. There is not several theories of evolution, evolution is the only theory but there are some theories within of how some processes work. The statement that the fossil record does not support evolution is also wrong. It is one of the main points of evidence for evolution. The information about 700 scientists signing the statement that evolution is wrong should also mention the Steve Project, which has taken names just from scientists who are named Steve and have many more names than the Discovery Institute. There is also statistics regarding medical doctors who do not believe in evolution, but for some reason does not comment on scientists in general, such as this poll [http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/] which states that 97% of scientist believe evolution. [[User:Crzyclarks|Crzyclarks]] 20:32, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Is this article semi-protected like on Wikipedia, or is it fully protected so only admins can edit? I also added back the "Issues" section as it was removed for some reason. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 14:48, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

This article needs to be unprotected. Only admins seem to be able to edit and from what I've seen, all admins are YEC's. The section above this one offers improvements to the article, yet it was removed by an admin and the fixes and suggested content still has not been implemented. In short, the article is embarrassing for the website and makes its motto look like a joke. Literally a joke made to poke fun at itself. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:49, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

The Selfish Gene

2012-09-12T20:00:01Z

Narrator:

'''''The Selfish Gene''''' is a scientific book on [[evolution]] by [[Richard Dawkins]], published in 1976.

It brilliantly builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's first book ''Adaptation and Natural Selection''. Dawkins coined the term ''selfish gene'' as a way of expressing the gene-centered view of evolution, which holds that evolution is best viewed as acting on [[gene]]s, and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes. An organism is expected to evolve to maximize its [[inclusive fitness]] – the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an [[evolutionarily stable strategy]].

== Altruism denial ==
The fundamental purpose of Dawkins' book is to account for one of the most serious contradictions to Darwinism, the existence of altruism in nature (see [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]). To do so, he simply denies that altruism truly exists, and attempts to account for its perceived occurrence by reducing all animal behavior to the manifestation of a gene's inherent desire to survive as (seemingly) selfishness, with excellent logic. Many critics claimed that his work is extremely speculative and shy on evidence, however it was praised by the intelligent scientific community. As such, ''The Selfish Gene'' has become lauded by respectable scientists, and even intelligent laymen, but otherwise largely ignored. Many people distort its claims in an attempt to present it as unfalsifiable.

== Memes ==
The book also coins the term ''[[meme]]'' for a unit of human cultural evolution analogous to the gene, suggesting that such "selfish" replication may also model human culture, in a different sense. Memes were Dawkins' attempt to provide a scientific basis for cultural relativism and atheistic denial of religion, by reducing all matters of faith to a matter of "memes." "Memetics" has since become a favorite area of study for people deemed [[militant atheism|militant atheists]].

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Richard Dawkins]]

{{evolution}}

Beatnik

2012-09-12T19:43:23Z

Narrator:

Beatnik is a term for an anti-materialistic culture of people in the late 1950s analogous to [[hippies]] a decade later. The term was coined by Herb Caen on April 2, 1958 in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle. He modified an earlier, more positive term Beat Generation and added the -nik suffix from [[Sputnik]], which had launched in the prior six months.

Beatniks were associated with poetry and jazz. [[Jack Kerouac|Jack Kerouac's]] novel [[On the road]] was viewed by many as the beat generation's manifesto.
[[Category:culture]]

On the road

2012-09-12T19:37:32Z

Narrator:

On the Road is the second published novel of the American born French-Canadian author Jack Kerouac. The principle themes are travel, self-fulfilment, drugs, sex, jazz and a search for spiritual and physical comfort. It was published after Kerouac's first and more conventional novel, [[The Town and The City]], which was heavily influenced by Tom Wolfe. Kerouac wrote a novel before either of these titled The Sea Is My Brother, which he disapproved of and therefore did not wish to see published. The Sea Is My Brother is set to be made available in late 2012.

On the Road was written in 1951 and published in 1957. It chronicles the real-life travels of Jack Kerouac and his friend Neal Cassady in Mexico and North America. In the book, as in Kerouac's other novels which depicted real people, he gave pseudonymns to his characters in order to prevent accusations of lible. He refers to himself as Sal Paradise and to Neal Cassady as Dean Moriaty.

The novel is the first to use Kerouac's own developed style of writing which he called 'spontaneous prose'. This was a style which broke with literary conventions and adopted a sentimental, highly descriptive tone which, as one critic put it, "swings to the rhythym of jazz". Many of Kerouac's sentences in the novel are very long, poetical, highly quotable and lyrical. It was written in three weeks, though for the next six years, it was edited and amended sporadically by Kerouac.

The influence of On the Road was deemed highly influential in sparking the 'hippy movement' of the 1960's.
A quote by the musican Bob Dylan is included on the back page of the Penguin Classics edition of the novel, in which he says of the book: "It changed my life, like it changes everyone elses."
Kerouac originally found it difficult securing a publisher for the novel, and when he did it was met with critical approval but relatively few sales. Viking Press first published the novel in 1957, though since then it has been published, often with lengthy introductions that illuminate the background to the work, by other publishing companies.

Kerouac wrote a letter urging the actor Marlon Brando to make a film of the novel at a time when he was struggling financially.

On the Road is still widely read today, although mainly among intellectuals. It is generally regarded as one of the classics of American literature, and the leading work of the 'Beat generation' writers, of which Allen Ginsberg and William S. Burroughs were notable figures.

Quotes from the novel are featured on a slab in Kerouac Alley, California, at a site nearby to a bookstore and bar where Kerouac would read and drink.

In a drunken interview years after the novel was published, Kerouac seemed to dismiss the novel, saying "I was young then" and waving his hand as if to imply he regarded the work as immature.
However, many interviews which Kerouac took part in towards the end of his life (he died in 1969) demonstrate that he was suffering from the effects of a life-time of drinking. He would later die as a result of this alcohol abuse.

On the Road was adapted into a film in 2012, to the general dissaproval of devout fans.

Both in style and in content, it continues to be an inspiration, principally as a liberator of disaffected youths. One of the foremost effects of the novel is that it points out the open road, and invites all those who share Kerouac's counter-culture attitude to take to it, just as he did. However, many inspired young people, Kerouac would later reveal, took it upon themselves to call at the home of the author, in order to thank him for it. As he says, by the time the book was in circulation, that part of his life was over. He was too old to join them on their adventures.

The Town and The City

2012-09-12T19:34:17Z

Narrator: Created page with "The Town and The City is the first published novel of the American author Jack Kerouac (born Jean-Louis Kerouac on March 12, 1922 - died October 21, 1969). It is thought to..."

The Town and The City is the first published novel of the American author [[Jack Kerouac]] (born Jean-Louis Kerouac on March 12, 1922 - died October 21, 1969).

It is thought to have been inspired by his father's death.

The novel is Kerouac's longest. Before writing it he made a decision not to stop until he had completed 300,000 words. It was published in 1950 by Harcourt Brace.

Kerouac wrote the novel over a period of two years, keeping a diary that detailed much of his philosophical and literary troubles during this time. He relied upon the works of Fyodor Dostoevksy, calling Dostoevksy's wisdom "the highest wisdom in the world" after he grew tired with the essays of the "too self-conscious" Leo Tolstoy, for spiritual guidance.

It was aptly pointed out that Kerouac relied heavily upon the influence of [[Thomas Wolfe]] while writing the novel, and many comparisons can be made between it and the works of Wolfe. Many critics, however, suggested that Kerouac, far from merely emulating Wolfe, had surpassed him.

The novel is about a large family, (surname Martin) and features the five sons and three daughters of the family growing up, and being drawn from their semi-rural life in Galloway, to the symbol of capitalism and urbanity - the "melting pot" - that was New York, all in search of fame and identity.

Kerouac applied many of his own character traits to the sons of the family, though he can be most closely compared with Peter Martin. Much of the events and conversations that happen in the novel and to Peter have their parallel in Kerouac's own life. Several of his friends appear in the work, including the writer [[Allen Ginsberg]] and his own father, as George Martin.

The Town and The City takes the form of a bildungsroman. It is an impeccable first novel, written when Kerouac was in his early twenties, and was proceeded by Kerouac's most famous work [[On the road]] (sic: link does not work otherwise) - the most perfectly appropriate novel to serve this role.

His most conventional novel, it is also the most revealing. It allows one to assess the mind of Kerouac before he had developed (and subsequently become associated) with his own 'spontaneous prose' style and the Beat generation movement he would come to lead (though not, entirely, voluntarily).

Erewhon

2012-09-12T18:56:38Z

Narrator: Created page with "Erewhon is an 1872 novel by Samuel Butler. It was inspired partly by his time in colonial New Zealand and by his reading of Charles Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species'. The wor..."

Erewhon is an 1872 novel by Samuel Butler. It was inspired partly by his time in colonial New Zealand and by his reading of Charles Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species'.

The work centres around a young traveller, who, setting off to make his fortune in a far off country, discovers the remote and idealistic land of Erewhon (backwards it is reminiscent of the word 'Nowhere'). However, it is soon learned that this apparent Utopia has many faults.

Erewhon heavily bears the influence of evolutionary theory, and is written by an author who would later come to oppose the theory of natural selection put forward by Darwin. While Samuel Butler was a criticiser of religious hypocrisy, his archetypal attitudes as a conservative Englishman are prevalent in the book.

It is a fresh and original work of literature, though it has been described by Peter Mudford as lacking in high imagination.

Jack Kerouac

2012-09-12T18:41:15Z

Narrator:

'''Jack Kerouac''' (born Jean-Louis Kerouac March 12, 1922 - died October 21, 1969) was one of [[United States of America|America's]] most well known writers of the 1950s. He wrote such famous books as ''Big Sur'', ''The Dharma Bums'', ''Doctor Sax'', ''Desolation Angels'', ''Visions of Gerard'', the novella ''Pic'', the book of poetry ''Mexico City Blues'', and the classic novel [[On the Road]].

He is credited with starting the [[Beatnik|Beat Generation]] and was friendly with other great writers of the time including [[Allen Ginsberg]], [[William S. Burroughs]], [[Ken Kesey]] and [[Tom Wolfe]].

He died of blood-loss due to complications stemming from a life of [[alcohol abuse]].

==References==
<http://www.beatmuseum.org/kerouac/jackkerouac.html/>
[[category:authors|Kerouac, Jack]]

On the road

2012-09-12T18:30:50Z

Narrator: On the Road is a novel by the deceased author Jack Kerouac, which was published in 1957 by Viking Press.

On the Road is the second published novel of the American born French-Canadian author Jack Kerouac. The principle themes are travel, self-fulfilment, drugs, sex, jazz and a search for spiritual and physical comfort. It was published after Kerouac's first and more conventional novel, The Town and The City, which was heavily influenced by Tom Wolfe. Kerouac wrote a novel before either of these titled The Sea Is My Brother, which he disapproved of and therefore did not wish to see published. The Sea Is My Brother is set to be made available in late 2012.

On the Road was written in 1951 and published in 1957. It chronicles the real-life travels of Jack Kerouac and his friend Neal Cassady in Mexico and North America. In the book, as in Kerouac's other novels which depicted real people, he gave pseudonymns to his characters in order to prevent accusations of lible. He refers to himself as Sal Paradise and to Neal Cassady as Dean Moriaty.

The novel is the first to use Kerouac's own developed style of writing which he called 'spontaneous prose'. This was a style which broke with literary conventions and adopted a sentimental, highly descriptive tone which, as one critic put it, "swings to the rhythym of jazz". Many of Kerouac's sentences in the novel are very long, poetical, highly quotable and lyrical. It was written in three weeks, though for the next six years, it was edited and amended sporadically by Kerouac.

The influence of On the Road was deemed highly influential in sparking the 'hippy movement' of the 1960's.
A quote by the musican Bob Dylan is included on the back page of the Penguin Classics edition of the novel, in which he says of the book: "It changed my life, like it changes everyone elses."
Kerouac originally found it difficult securing a publisher for the novel, and when he did it was met with critical approval but relatively few sales. Viking Press first published the novel in 1957, though since then it has been published, often with lengthy introductions that illuminate the background to the work, by other publishing companies.

Kerouac wrote a letter urging the actor Marlon Brando to make a film of the novel at a time when he was struggling financially.

On the Road is still widely read today, although mainly among intellectuals. It is generally regarded as one of the classics of American literature, and the leading work of the 'Beat generation' writers, of which Allen Ginsberg and William S. Burroughs were notable figures.

Quotes from the novel are featured on a slab in Kerouac Alley, California, at a site nearby to a bookstore and bar where Kerouac would read and drink.

In a drunken interview years after the novel was published, Kerouac seemed to dismiss the novel, saying "I was young then" and waving his hand as if to imply he regarded the work as immature.
However, many interviews which Kerouac took part in towards the end of his life (he died in 1969) demonstrate that he was suffering from the effects of a life-time of drinking. He would later die as a result of this alcohol abuse.

On the Road was adapted into a film in 2012, to the general dissaproval of devout fans.

Both in style and in content, it continues to be an inspiration, principally as a liberator of disaffected youths. One of the foremost effects of the novel is that it points out the open road, and invites all those who share Kerouac's counter-culture attitude to take to it, just as he did. However, many inspired young people, Kerouac would later reveal, took it upon themselves to call at the home of the author, in order to thank him for it. As he says, by the time the book was in circulation, that part of his life was over. He was too old to join them on their adventures.