Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolution syndrome"

Latest revision as of 22:29, September 18, 2014

Evolutionists have a compulsion to censor opposing or alternative views. This can be seen, among other places, on wikis. So, hypothetically, if there was a wiki whose pro-evolution was locked to prevent editing by anyone except for a single sysop, and where anyone who attempted to add alternative views was reverted or blocked, would that be an example of the type of censorship you have in mind? Eoinc 08:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

"insist that their belief in evolution must somehow be true" Isn't "their belief" superfluous? "Believing" something is "holding it to be true", so someone must believe it's true to believe it at all. --Toffeeman 09:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

The locking is due to the prevalence of evolution syndrome. If someone can propose a solution, I welcome it.

No, "their belief" is not superfluous. There are are different beliefs about evolution, but the person who has evolution syndrome insists that his belief is true to the exclusion of other beliefs. Most normal people do not take that attitude.--Aschlafly 09:21, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

But there is a difference between asserting that the theory of evolution is true (I.E. that it is factual), and a person asserting that their belief in it is true (I.E. that they truly believe in it). The text currently suggests that evolution syndrome is an insistance that one has a true belief in evolution. Are you implying that sufferers of this 'syndrome' do not actually truly believe in evolution despite insisting that they do? Sideways 15:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Since there's been no response, I have taken the iniative & changed the wording. I am assuming that the intended meaning is that sufferers of this "syndrome" insist that evolution itself is true, not only that they truly believe in it. Sideways

Is there any evidence to support a theory counter to that of evolution? Yes - scientists do not suffer fools gladly (nor do most people). Insisting beliefs are true does not make them so. Theories need to make predictions that are verifiable. Can we get some reference for counter evolutionary evidence? This articles lacks any references at all. --Scasey 10:27, 3 December 2009 (EST)

See Counterexamples to evolution. As to your fallacious argument that something must be true if it is considered better than an alternative, that argument does not work in mathematical proofs, it doesn't work in logic, and it doesn't fool anyone here.--Andy Schlafly 10:37, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Most atheists to many atheists change

While most atheists certainly believe in evolution as the article states, it seems unlikely that most also contribute 90% edits about evolution. That only leaves 10% for other liberal atheist issues like promoting abortion, etc. Sulli 13:22, 27 December 2008 (EST)

I would argue that all atheists necessarily believe in evolution. Consider: An atheist necessarily accepts a materialist worldview, and that conscious being(s) have not always existed (since if a conscious being had always existed, well, there's God right there). Therefore, an atheist necessarily believes that the universe went from having no consciousness to having us, and the process by which this mysteriously happens is called evolution. Maybe we should change this to "all" in the article? JacobB 19:29, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

Some atheists have wacky theories about aliens or some other source of life on earth. Also, not all atheists suffer from evolution syndrome itself, though most probably do.--Andy Schlafly 19:58, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

Notability

Does CP have a notability guideline regarding articles? I've never heard this term used anywhere else and the fact that it has no citations seems to suggest it's a made-up term. I like it, but our job is to chronicle, not create, information.--DReynolds 12:31, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Since no one has responded, I've nominated this article for deletion. No sources, no support. It violates the commandments. Kill it --DReynolds 00:14, 11 February 2009 (EST).

Your comments display a violence of language and closed-mindedness characteristic of ES-sufferers. Our job is to chronicle, not create, information - what better example of chronicling information could there be than to typologise atheist behaviours and to give a name to a previously nameless - but real - condition? RegalBruin 09:48, 11 February 2009 (EST)

A "violence of language"? Where in his statement is there a "violence of language?" I see nothing malicious or offensive by any standard. If there were ad hominem attacks or, THAT would be violence of language. It seems like you instantly categorized him as an "ES-sufferer" without actually reading his comment. What he was trying to say was that because there are no sources for this article, and the term does not appear frequently elsewhere, that it is of questionable validity. And, like he said, it violates the basic principles of Conservapedia. The example you gave of typologizing atheist behaviors proves exactly what he was suggesting about creating information. YOU are creating a term for something, rather than defining a previously existing term. The point of an encyclopedia is not to come up with new terms and words, but rather to explain those that are used elsewhere in the world. Unless you can provide a valid source of this term, then it is original research. And ironically, you seemed to have missed the statement "I like it" in his comment, which suggests that he is not a crazed ES-sufferer, but rather trying to keep Conservapedia true to its own commandments, despite his general agreement with the information in the article. Personally, I also agree with the information, however I feel that unless it can be verified, it is an embarassingly baseless generalization of anti-creationist efforts. Certainly there are people that are like this article describes. There are radicals and extremists in every group. There are even extremists among the Creationists, which cannot seriously be denied (I am a Creationist by the way). To create a page about these nutjobs is not notable UNLESS you are defining a particular group of extremists (for instance, Al Queda among Islamic extremists), the generalization of the radical group is widely recognized (for instance: terrorists) and as such can be supported with reputable sources, or you are attempting to describe the entirety of the group as having these radical characteristics. In the case of Evolution Syndrome, none of these are present. If you were to find a source that supports that Evolution Syndrome is a legitimate term, let alone mental condition, then the article would be notable. Atleast provide evidence of the crimes that those with "ES" are accused of. If they censor Creationism in the classroom, provide concrete support of that accusation, or else it is baseless slander. Here's hoping that somebody has the time or ability to find support for all of the accustations in this article. This may very well be an important social trend of the "activities of atheists", like you've said, but until there is valid support for the term, it isn't. Br1 00:19, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

Minor formatting request

Perhaps format the "See also" section with bullets/unenumerated list? The page is locked for editing so I can't make that change. Thanks. RoyL 18:05, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

Done as requested, both reformatting and unlocking. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 18:52, 13 July 2009 (EDT)