Talk:Evolutionism/Draft

Wow. I've been gone a couple of days and missed the discussion on this article, and all I can say is wow. This is ridiculous. Evolution is not a religion. Period. And you can't quote biased creationist sites to try to prove evolution is a religion. I know this article was on the AFD list at one point, I recommend it go back on there. This kind of stuff doesn't help conservapedia at all. ColinR 13:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

So what's your point? Why not have a contraversy section that defends both sides? There's nothig wrong with sourcing creationists sites, except for the fact that you disagree with them. --Ymmotrojam 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Look, creationist sites are hardly reputable sources for proving evolution is a religion. If you find a site created by an "evolutionist" saying that evolution is a religion, I may be able to take this article a little more seriously. Until then, I stand by my position that this article needs to be deleted as soon as possible. ColinR 13:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

What controversy? This is just creationists pointing wildly and asserting that supporting evolution is the same as "believing". Evolution is NOT a religion, and many, many Christians support it. The current article claims that, in order to end up at the conclusion that evolution is most likely right, you can't believe in God in some form. Sorry, but the split is not "Christians vs. Evolutionists". --Sid 3050 13:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. It seems clear from reading the article that a) one can take the position described without actually accepting evolution, and b) one can accept evolution without taking the position described. Calling it 'evolutionism' is just a cheap shot meant to reduce a sound scientific theory to an unsupported belief system. Tsumetai 13:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It still is on AFD (hence the note about the Draft box). I just moved it to Draft for exactly the same reasons you pointed out. There had been a couple of reverts by now, and I wanted to avoid a revert war "out in the open". --Sid 3050 13:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

"Followers of evolutionism"? This keeps getting weirder. If you can cite a source that discusses "evolutionism" and "following evolutionism" by anyone who claims to be a proponent I'd be heartily surprised.--Murray 13:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Until sources are cited and this page can be made fair to both sides of the issue (if possible), it should remain as a draft. After a time, if it cannot be made acceptable, we should just do away with it. There is no evidence shown (through citation or elsewhere) that "evolutionism" is anything more than a jargon used by a few creationists, and so cannot be considered to be used by the majority of conservatives (or anyone), thus does not warrant a page. --Dikaiosune 4:38 19 March 2007