Difference between revisions of "Talk:Scientific Theory of Evolution"

Revision as of 00:44, March 22, 2007

This is part of the evolution/disambiguation page structure that a couple of admins and I created to deal with issues of bias on this site. A number of editors have signed on to this project constructively, including some previous objectors. I'd appreciate it if it didn't get blanked. Please express your support for this project below.-AmesG 20:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The compromise was talked about the Creationism article but has gained more support from other admins elsewhere. Would-be-blankers: please respect our group consensus and do not put your own opinion above that of a good number of admins and editors.-AmesG 20:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not Enough

Evolution most certainly is not very controversial in the United States. A very very small fraction of the scientists who signed the discovery institute's petition against evolution have degrees in the life sciences, and the total number makes up a tiny fraction of scientists in the US. Court rulings in Dover show that legal precedent still sides with evolution. Additionally, the removal of ALL of the board members from the Dover board of education shows that the public there sides with evolution as well. The idea that there is any controversy at all is an overstatement lending power to a few dissident individuals stepping way from an enormous majority. --Charliemc86

Charlie, I wholly (!!!!) agree with you, I really do. Trust me, I revere the Kitzmiller decision for blasting ID out of the water. But this article will get deleted wholesale, and we'll have only the theory of evolution page, which is wholly unscientific. I think this might be the best we can do on this site. But could you please talk more about evolution as a positive in this article, rather than delete the "controversial" paragraph? I'd appreciate ANY ANY help you can give. Really, I'm hugely on your side.-AmesG 20:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, I'm glad you agree, but I still feel claiming that there is a controversy at all is a creationist lie. It may be the best we can do, but saying there's a real issue here is a creationist viewpoint, not that of the majority of Americans. I'll have to come back and fill in more information about evolution when I've got a chance. If you want some good evidence for evolution, take a look at [1], a nonprofit aimed at stopping the spread of ID. I'd say that's a reasonable source for a scientific treatment of Evolution. --Charliemc86

You're right, it's a great source. Trust me Charlie. We're on the same page. Just I'm trying to work within this system as best as I can to stop them from slandering science. It's not going so well :-) but this might be a step in the right direction. Thanks for the cite, and I really appreciate your future contributions, and look forward to them!-AmesG 20:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I did a little editing on the last paragraph. It's now something I'm happy with, but still mentions the controversy. We'll see if there are any objections to it. --Charliemc86

Perhaps the problem is that the article fails to point out,

that evolutionary theory is based almost entirely on conjecture.

Seriously, BillOReillyFan, go read an actual science text before you contribute on this page. I've read AnswersinGenesis to be informed on your views, give me the same courtesy!-AmesG 20:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Consensus wording?

Is the content on this page part of a consensus or just the existence of the page. How much of this content is open to expansion and alteration? Tmtoulouse 20:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The wording is geared to be consensus building but it doesn't reflect a consensus. Still, though, it should bear the end goal in mind. What do you intent to change? Help is always appreciated.-AmesG 20:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I understand the end goal, I might want to take a shot at expanding the article some, as long as I am not stepping on toes. Tmtoulouse 20:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)