Difference between revisions of "Talk:Creation vs. evolution debate"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Very well done)
(Evolutionism has nothing to do with the origin of the Earth, or of the Universe; wording should be changed to reflect that)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{Wikiproject Religion}}
 
== Another article ==
 
== Another article ==
  
Line 12: Line 13:
 
Heartofgold, I believe this is very well done.  You pointed out the facts without instating to many POV issues.  This is a great article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 
Heartofgold, I believe this is very well done.  You pointed out the facts without instating to many POV issues.  This is a great article.--[[User:Tims|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.
+
: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. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  
−
: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. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 01:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
+
== Evolution from monkeys ==
 +
 
 +
SimonA changed "...textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys in accordance with Charles Darwin's theory ..." to "...textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys, in ''what was believed to be'' accordance with Charles Darwin's theory ..." (my emphasis).
 +
 
 +
If he is saying that Darwin didn't teach that man evolved from ''monkeys'', per se, then I'll accept that he is probably correct.  But did the textbooks say "''monkeys''"?  The point is, I'm wondering if the edit was merely a technicality that would be better fixed in a different way.  At the moment, it ''implies'' that Darwin's theory ''doesn't'' propose that man evolved from an ape-like creature, which it clearly does.
 +
 
 +
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:47, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 
 +
==[[Culture Wars]]==
 +
 
 +
Cut from intro:
 +
 
 +
: where it is often portrayed as part of the culture wars.<nowiki><ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=247-263}} Chapter titled ''Modern Culture Wars''.  See also {{hnb|Ruse|1999|p=26}}, who writes "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that, contrary to the usually held tale of science and religion being always opposed...religion and theologically inclined philosophy have frequently been very significant factors in the forward movement of science."</ref></nowiki>
 +
 
 +
I have no idea what [[culture wars]] means here, or "portrayed as". And what does the reference have to do with anything? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:13, 12 January 2008 (EST)
 +
 
 +
==Language inaccuracy==
 +
Concerning the opening paragraph, it is incorrect. Evolution concerns, according to Evolutionists, only the evolution of lifeforms; it does not seek to answer the question "How did life appear", and, even less, the questions "What is the origin of the Earth" and "What is the origin of the Universe". Evolutionism has nothing to do with Earth or the Universe.<br/>
 +
To clear things up: <br/>
 +
[[Evolutionism]] is the non-religious theory about the development of lifeforms; <br/>
 +
[[Abiogenesis]] is the non-religious field of study about how life can appear from inorganic matter; <br/>
 +
There are several non-religious theories about the origin of the planet Earth and the Solar System; <br/>
 +
[[The Big Bang Theory]] is the most famous non-religious theory about the origin of the Universe; <br/>
 +
[[Creationism]] is the religious theory that encompasses the origin of man, life, the planet, and the Universe.<br/>
 +
So, while you can use the word [[Creationism]] to describe both the creation of life, of man, and of the Universe, the word ''Evolutionism'', if you want to be accurate, should only be used in a biological sense. While it is true that most people who believe in Evolution also seem to believe in the Big Bang, the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do whatsoever with the origin of the Earth, or of the Universe, or even with the origin of life. Therefore, saying that the Creation vs Evolution debate "''concerns the question of how things came to be, including the universe, Earth, life, and mankind''" is incorrect. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 11:06, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 15:06, July 2, 2011

! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

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. HeartOfGold 02:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution from monkeys

SimonA changed "...textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys in accordance with Charles Darwin's theory ..." to "...textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys, in what was believed to be accordance with Charles Darwin's theory ..." (my emphasis).

If he is saying that Darwin didn't teach that man evolved from monkeys, per se, then I'll accept that he is probably correct. But did the textbooks say "monkeys"? The point is, I'm wondering if the edit was merely a technicality that would be better fixed in a different way. At the moment, it implies that Darwin's theory doesn't propose that man evolved from an ape-like creature, which it clearly does.

Philip J. Rayment 02:47, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Culture Wars

Cut from intro:

where it is often portrayed as part of the culture wars.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=247-263}} Chapter titled ''Modern Culture Wars''. See also {{hnb|Ruse|1999|p=26}}, who writes "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that, contrary to the usually held tale of science and religion being always opposed...religion and theologically inclined philosophy have frequently been very significant factors in the forward movement of science."</ref>

I have no idea what culture wars means here, or "portrayed as". And what does the reference have to do with anything? --Ed Poor Talk 13:13, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Language inaccuracy

Concerning the opening paragraph, it is incorrect. Evolution concerns, according to Evolutionists, only the evolution of lifeforms; it does not seek to answer the question "How did life appear", and, even less, the questions "What is the origin of the Earth" and "What is the origin of the Universe". Evolutionism has nothing to do with Earth or the Universe.
To clear things up:
Evolutionism is the non-religious theory about the development of lifeforms;
Abiogenesis is the non-religious field of study about how life can appear from inorganic matter;
There are several non-religious theories about the origin of the planet Earth and the Solar System;
The Big Bang Theory is the most famous non-religious theory about the origin of the Universe;
Creationism is the religious theory that encompasses the origin of man, life, the planet, and the Universe.
So, while you can use the word Creationism to describe both the creation of life, of man, and of the Universe, the word Evolutionism, if you want to be accurate, should only be used in a biological sense. While it is true that most people who believe in Evolution also seem to believe in the Big Bang, the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do whatsoever with the origin of the Earth, or of the Universe, or even with the origin of life. Therefore, saying that the Creation vs Evolution debate "concerns the question of how things came to be, including the universe, Earth, life, and mankind" is incorrect. --Leo-from-UK 11:06, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Creation_vs._evolution_debate&oldid=885379"