Talk:Evolution

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,
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. ~ CPanel 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Set 2 of Archives

Set 1 of Archives

Theory?

Evolution is most certainly a fact. --TheSensei 21:51, 22 February 2011 (EST)

This is what's called an argument by assertion. --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.--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. 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.--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? 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. DenisTR 22:25, 13 April 2011 (EDT)