Talk:Creation vs. evolution debate

Another article

Another article I worked on. It might still have some liberal bias, so feel free to flag this bias here and I will try to rework it. Please do not simply delete content, though, unless you have the source. But if you must delete content, please move the deleted content to this page so that I can have a chance to rework it. Thanks. HeartOfGold 01:20, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Scopes Trial

The Scopes trial section needs to be reworked per Coulter's Godless and Larson's Summer for the gods, emphasizing that this farce trial was invented by liberials and attention cravers.

Added Coulter and Larson to sources...done. HeartOfGold 03:13, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Very well done

Heartofgold, I believe this is very well done. You pointed out the facts without instating to many POV issues. This is a great article.--TimS 11:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I do want to go over the article more to remove unfortunate use of tone that will appear to be forcing the reader to make up his or her mind in a certain way. On the other hand, I do not want to exclude aspects of the controversy that are glossed over by staunch evoluitionists, such as the less flattering motives and methods of some prominent Darwinian and Evolutionary promoters.

To the extent of not glossing over certain usually ignored aspects of the controversy, I hope the article always remains POV. But I do want the the tone to be disinterested and objective--that of a historian or a political scientist. That is, in my opinion, the article should be about the controversy. Not a propaganda piece to declare that one side or the other is or should be the winner. Regarding sources, to the extent possible, I hope that only notable and ideally disinterested published sources are used. (Yes, I used Ann Coulter's book, but this is a conservative encyclopedia, and while her tone is caustic and undeniably POV, her logic is, in my opinion, sound, and backed up by other disinterested sources such as Larson.) In particular, I hope the use of creationist (ICR) and evolutionist (Panda'sThumb) websites as sources are minimized, and if used, clearly identified in the text of the article. Likewise, the use of policital action organizations as sources should be clearly identified when used, because, as interested parties to the controversy, their conclusions, research, and statements should be clearly identified. On the other hand, sources like Larson and Numbers (and others who have done similar disinterested treatments) are excellent sources for this largely socio-political controversy. The use of interested parties is of course usually unavoidable when discussing the scientific and philosophical aspects. HeartOfGold 01:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)