| Line 220: |
Line 220: |
| | | | |
| | ::::Finally, you question my ability to write "useful content". First, I was not aware that prior recommendations are required to make suggestions on this wiki, even after reading the Commandments and Guidelines! Have I missed something? Second, I think that the quality of my prose in this discussion page should be evidence that I am a good writer; if you would like, I could draft better content for the article for you, or another similarly-privileged user, to integrate. Does that seem reasonable? My knowledge of the topic of evolution is significantly better than that of the average layman, so I am confident that I can provide a quality exposition.--[[User:Jordan|Jordan]] 18:35, 12 September 2007 (EDT) | | ::::Finally, you question my ability to write "useful content". First, I was not aware that prior recommendations are required to make suggestions on this wiki, even after reading the Commandments and Guidelines! Have I missed something? Second, I think that the quality of my prose in this discussion page should be evidence that I am a good writer; if you would like, I could draft better content for the article for you, or another similarly-privileged user, to integrate. Does that seem reasonable? My knowledge of the topic of evolution is significantly better than that of the average layman, so I am confident that I can provide a quality exposition.--[[User:Jordan|Jordan]] 18:35, 12 September 2007 (EDT) |
| − | ==Darwin an atheist?==
| |
| − | :Interestingly, Darwin says in that extract that he considered himself a theist at the time he wrote ''[[Origin of Species]]''. Indeed, he explicitly cites God as creator in ''Origin''. And even in the quote provided, well after the publication of ''Origin'', Darwin did not profess atheism, but only agnosticism. How then can we say that Darwin's theory of evolution (as articulated in ''Origin'') was intended to provide a godless / antisupernaturalist theory of natural history, when he was a theist at the time he devised it? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 18:51, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::Ungtss, I suggest you read the [[Charles Darwin]] article again. Here are two portions: "Scholars refer to the private notebook in which Darwin stated he was a materialist as the "M" notebook of 1838.[9] Ernst Mayr wrote that "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist' (more or less = atheist)". [10]" Also, "In 1831 he graduated from Christ's College at Cambridge with a BA degree in the classics and theology. On December 27 of the same year he departed on the HMS Beagle for a five year voyage of exploration. The Beagle returned to English shores on October 2 1836. In 1837, Darwin drew his now famous depiction of common ancestry in the form of a branching tree [1]." Therefore two things can be said based on the material cited. It is unclear if Darwin was a theist or atheist at the time he believed in common descent. Second, it appears as if Darwin lied to people regarding his atheism. I think you are being naive here and taking Darwin at his word in that extract (rather than being skeptical) since it appears as if Darwin lied about his atheism to people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:57, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::: 1) If you will concede that it is unclear whether he was a theist or an atheist at the time he wrote ''Origin'', then we need go no further, because the issue is resolved. How can we say that evolution was an inherently "naturalistic/godless" natural history if we're not sure whether Darwin was an atheist at the time he articulated it?
| |
| − | :::: 2) Even if Darwin ''did'' intend evolution as a defense of materialism, why are we justified in calling evolution itself inherently naturalistic, when far more evolutionists are theists than are atheists? Surely evolution is far more than Darwin's opinion when he wrote it. It's been about 150 years! Why not say "The Theory of Evolution is the idea that all life on earth is related, and that all diversity in life is wholly the result of genetic variation and natural selection. It can either be naturalistic (denying that God guided the process), or theistic (asserting that God guided the process)." [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:38, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::::::Ungtss, we know Darwin started lost his faith sometimes between 1836-39. The Darwin branching tree diagram came in 1837. I think it would be foolhardy to go by Darwin's public pronouncements since he lied publically about his apparent atheism. But the point is irrelevant anyways. We have a methodological naturalism and/or atheism theory of evolution article and a theistic evolution article. They are two different concepts. And I can't see creating a third article, stating well Darwin might have been an atheist or theist so here is a we don't know what Darwin was article. I think we need to stay current and now there are "methodological naturalism"/atheism proponents (that is how it is taught at most universities/colleges/high schools) and theistic evolution proponents of the evolutionary concept. Anyways, given my past interactions with you, I don't believe I am going to attempt to have further dialogue with you on this point.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::::::But Darwin ''could have'' believed that God created evolution. So far as I know Darwin offers no explanation for the origin of the mechanism itself. Since we all agree that [[microevolution]] happens, we know that God must have created that, so someone who believed that God created that could also believe God created evolution operating on a somewhat larger scale. [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:27, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | : You're still evading the points at issue.
| |
| − | :: 1) Although the talk-page says this article is to be edited only by the Student Panel, it is only being edited by you;
| |
| − | :: 2) This article does not describe evolution -- it skips right to rebutting it. And that's not what encyclopedia articles should do;
| |
| − | :: 3) This article does not even effectively rebut evolution, because it gets caught up in superficial non-sequiturs and ad hominems that only damage our credibility;
| |
| − | :: 4) I'm not proposing a new article. I'm proposing that this article describe the theory of evolution ''as it is'', neither inherently theistic nor inherently atheistic, that ''this'' article only describe the theory itself, something this article does not do.
| |
| − | :: 5) Dialogue is something we've never had, because you never address my points. I'd like to begin dialoguing with you, if you're interested. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:14, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | :::Ungtss, I took the panel's decision, "will not be changed in any major way" to mean that they liked my 100% anti-evolutionary article I largely created and did not want the direction of the article to be changed in any major way. Namely, they did not want ANY pro-evolutionary propaganda in the article. So I added a few sections and expanded some sections. I would add that the article's web traffic increased while I made the improvements. I would also add that while I am very pleased with the panel in general (they did like my article), I was a little disappointed that when people were communicating with them they were not getting responses although I can understand the panel deciding not to respond to much that was directed at them. However, people have busy lives so I can merely say I was a little disappointed. Secondly, how can you "describe evolution" when [[macroevolution]] does not take place? Next, the panel must have liked my adequacy of defining what the theory is because they said it has been improved significantly on that point and never posted subsequently. Next, you waste everyone's time by making unsubstantiated charges about the article (non-sequiturs and ad hominems). Lastly, the article never states the theory of evolution is atheistic but merely says it uses methodological naturalism. And given that the article was not at all theistic evolution orientated when the panel made their decision and given that Andy wanted the article to say that the theory of evolution was purely a materialist theory but compromised with methodological naturalism and citing that since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position have been atheists (sentence changed to methodological naturalism), I don't think your agenda here has much of a chance. I also believe that giving a conservative view in regards to methodological naturalism is helpful (article links to methodological naturalism). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::Hello Conservative,
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::<blockquote>"...I don't think your agenda here has much of a chance."</blockquote>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::I'm not sure that you understand Ungtss' agenda. Here are a couple of quotes which might illustrate it better:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::<blockquote>"You don't have to misrepresent evolution to debunk it. Fully explain it and it debunks itself."</blockquote>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::<blockquote>"You have to describe evolution before you debunk it."</blockquote>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::And, from a discussion elsewhere:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::<blockquote>"Evolution is so ridiculous on its own terms..."</blockquote>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::My agenda, for reference, is clearly explained by the following quote:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::<blockquote>"[Y]ou assume that I am an evolutionist. This is not the case... I want readers to walk away from the article with an improved understanding of the theory of evolution, and I want the criticisms of the theory to be better presented, and at a more opportune time, than is currently the case."</blockquote>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::In summary, Ungtss' and my agenda is to provide a better explanation of the theory of evolution in a purportedly encyclopaedic article, and to see criticism presented in a more structured fashion. You seem to have misinterpreted our desire to improve the article as a desire to include "pro-evolutionary propaganda". This is not the case, and I would be pleased if I could disabuse you of this misconception. :)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::<blockquote>"[H]ow can you "describe evolution" when [[macroevolution]] does not take place?"</blockquote>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::The same way you would describe Latter-Day Saint theology (assuming one is not LDS), or the plot of Hamlet. The clarity of the article is compromised by every descriptive statement being followed by criticism, instead of criticism being provided once the user actually understands the "theology" in question. If I were writing an encyclopaedia article about "Friends," I'd wait until after I had delivered the main premises of the show to explain contradictions or holes in the plot. (E.g. how on earth do they afford those apartments?)—[[User:Jordan|Jordan]] 13:46, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::: Well said, Jordan. I only wish there was a wiki around that embodied your philosophy. FYI, there's been an ongoing debate over what approach will be taken with respect to articles like this. There was a recent arbitration on the atheism page in which the conflict revolved around virtually identical problems. Mr. Shafly (who owns this wiki) has yet to make a determination on the arbitrator's recommendations in that case. When he does, we'll all know what direction he wants his wiki to take -- whether he wants articles to take an "us vs. them hit 'em with everything you got 'cause they're evil" approach, or a "describe accurately and let the facts speak for themselves because the facts support conservative beliefs in the end" approach. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:14, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | :Ungtss, you want us to present various views and make no indications on what is true or false and to supposedly take a neutral position. I don't see the point of a encyclopedia that has an article on the [[earth]] and spends a lot of time on the flat earth view and the round earth position and takes the same approach in the rest of the article in regards to whether there are really astronauts (giving the pros and con positions) and then spends a lot of time on conspiracy government view versus whether the government is not largely conspiratorial. Such a methodology is taking a [[postmodernism|postmodern]] approach and is not fitting for a real encyclopedia. There is such a thing as objective truth and postmodernism is a liberal ideology and not befitting '''Conserv'''apedia (we are not '''Neutral'''pedia! )[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:45, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::It's also not meant to me '''Retardo'''pedia. The student panel said "However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution" yet there is '''no''' description of what modern evolutionary is, and repeatedly confuses the scientific fact of evolution with neo-darwinian theory that explains it. It's hardly postmodern to include a description of the most influential intellectual movement in the history of biology even if you think it isn't true (are there articles on Britanica or wikipedia on Lamarkism? saltationism? Orthogenesis? - all theories of evolution that have been superceeded but are important parts of the intelectual geneology of evolutonary thinking...). It would certianly be better than a long quote mine interspersed with extrapolations and missconceptions that noone is allowled to fix...--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 00:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::: conservative, i addressed your allegations against me on my user page because this is not the appropriate forum for that. Your analogy to an article about the earth fails because it is a false analogy. If the article were about ''flat earthism'' then i would ''hope'' we'd describe the pov before bunking it. Same here. The panel acknowledged the absence of a meaningful, concise, accurate definition of the toe. I proposed one. You ignored it. Nothing new. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:24, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
| |