Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→"Through natural processes alone" vs. "Darwinism": Darwinism is taught and believed without any "supernatural" intervention.
<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
==Student Panel's Decision==
After much debate, the Conservapedia Panel has finished reviewing the Theory of Evolution page. We have determined that the article will remain protected indefinitely, to protect it from inevitable vandalism. We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution. Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review. We also realize the article is in need of revisions to areas containing problems with grammar and style and appreciate your help correcting this. The Panel apologizes for the long delay in this decision. Thank you for your patience. Please submit any further issues to the panel at [[User talk:CPanel]], and we will do our best to resolve them.
Sincerely,<br />
The Conservapedia Student Panel --[[User:CPanel]]
The Panel regarding a concise definition of the theory of evolution:
:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>
{| 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__
== 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)
==Student Panel's Decision==
After much debate, the Conservapedia Panel has finished reviewing the Theory of Evolution page. We have determined that the article will remain protected indefinitely, to protect it from inevitable vandalism. We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution. Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review. We also realize the article is in need of revisions to areas containing problems with grammar and style and appreciate your help correcting this. The Panel apologizes for the long delay in this decision. Thank you for your patience. Please submit any further issues to the panel at [[User talk:CPanel]], and we will do our best to resolve them.
Sincerely,<br />
The Conservapedia Student Panel --[[User:CPanel]]
The Panel regarding a concise definition of the theory of evolution:
:The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ [[User:CPanel|CPanel]] 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>
{| 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__
== 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)