Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 4

From Conservapedia
< Talk:Theory of evolution
This is the current revision of Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 4 as edited by Tsumetai (Talk | contribs) at 09:46, 21 March 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

I would add my support to this page being made available for editing. I have just looked at the page (on this wiki) about "bias" in Wikipedia, yet on that site a person can logon and correct mistakes. On this site on pages such as this there is just a one-sided view that is allowed to be presented. This article is a totally biased presentation, with the particular disadvantage that it cannot be corrected by any ordinary contributor bec ause the page is locked. I understand that you may have your own view but why prevent anyone from correcting mistakes, and why prevent someone who wants to present a balanced point of view? Godlives 07:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Current Talk Topics

Reading these entries, I think most of us here are normal and get really frustrated with the unbelievably IGNORANT views that most of these creationist have on evolution (and the like). That being said, please you normal people - don't be frustrated...the fact of the matter is, science is extremely complex and takes years of academic training to both understand and appreciate. Teaching creationist about evolution is like teaching a grade 1 calculus - they just do not have the mental capacity to understand. And you cannot blame them - creationists have grown up in very sheltered environments and for those of them that actually went on to University - I hardly think that the academic rigor of their theology or sociology courses could even compare to that of biochemistry or molecular biology.

I will leave you all with one thought though before you let your blood pressure go to high from reading....As so brilliantly put by Richard Dawkins, creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public." Debating with creationists gives them the "oxygen of respectability" that they so need and crave and as intellectual human beings, we need to simply ignore them. The best thing any of us could do right now is simply boycott both creationists and this website, and ensure that our children grow up in a generation that doesn't have to listen or consider such nonsense. all your eyes and only consider fact....just because you say the sky is pink doesn't necessarily mean it is.


Why is such a seriously flawed and factually incorrect article locked from editing?

Claims that no transitional forms exist, when there are hundreds available to even the most cursory search, and when, technically, every single living organism (living or dead) is in actual fact a "transitional form", simply delineat the paucity of genuine science available to support Creationist claims.

That's enough of that. Scorpionman 14:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Enough of what? Trying to be dismissive of the evidence does not cause the evidence to cease to exist or reduce its validity, it merely shows how tightly one's mind is closed. For instance, in today's (15th March 2007) news there is a photograph of a transitional form, displaying a midway stage in the evolution of the ear:
Agreed, how is proof that there are transitional forms, and proof that there are fossils so easily dismissed? I know Conservapedia is biased towards Christianity, but I didn't know Christians were all forbidden from knowing the truth about how we evolved. --ALFa 17:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
No, we all know your opinions about how we supposedly evolved. However, evolutionists are forbidden from hearing the TRUTH about how we were created. Scorpionman 19:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
It would appear that you believe that asserting that your position is "TRUTH" is sufficient to demonstrate that your claims are accurate. That is not the case. Dimensio 21:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
The Theory of Evolution page is clearly intended to be a creationist propaganda piece. Facts and honesty have no place there. Dimensio 19:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Clearly you have no clue what you're talking about, so cut it out until you do know what you're talking about. Scorpionman 19:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
If it is not your intent to ignore facts and employ deception, then why do you resort to deceptive out-of-context quotes as the primary content of the article? Dimensio 22:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused. Do conservatives not believe in science at all? This article seems censored and intends to shield people from the scientific perspective on evolution. --Truth is bipartisan 20:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you about this but I don't know enough about the topic to be able to do something about it.NSmyth21:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
We just see it differently. You're coming from a flawed naturalistic basis, we're not. We see the same data, it's just the glasses we're looking through are different. See the article, Evolutionism. --Ymmotrojam 21:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Even assuming that's true, the fact remains that this article doesn't actually describe the 'evolutionist' view of the data at all. Tsumetai 10:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
There is a point where the TOE needs to be given an objective description. This article is giving false information to students who may use it for their studies. For Conservapedia to be recognized as a valid reference for students perhaps this article should be unlocked and edited to give an objective stance.--TimS 10:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Tim; perhaps you'll consider contributing to the draft article. Can't guarantee that it will result in any changes to the article proper, but it can't hurt to try. Tsumetai 10:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Tsumetai, I will see what I can add. I just wonder about some of the educational experience that have been editing the article in the first place. After all the little bit of evolution that is taught in a general Bio class in college is not enough to truly understand it. --TimS 14:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Spent time proofreading

I received a short note regarding grammatical errors in this article. I was a writing tutor at a university so I did some proofreading and found some grammatical errors in the article. I also made some minor stylistic changes to sentences that I had composed. If anyone has any further input regarding this matter your comments would be appreciated. Conservative 02:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Let a scientist get a crack at it? Nematocyte 05:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
A scientist may introduce too much undesired fact. This article is clearly designed to be a showcase of typical creationist reasoning: devoid of actual fact, rich in quote mining and dishonesty. Clearly the author of this article wishes to give the impression that all conservatives are backwards champions of stupidity, and that conservatism means using lies to support a purely religious movement to destroy observed reality. I cannot fathom the reason for this, except to speculate that the Theory of Evolution page was actually written by a liberal who seeks to make liberalism look reasonable by comparison. Dimensio 09:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Dimensio, your vague allegations and attempts at mind reading are not exactly impressive. :) Conservative 10:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Nonetheless, you could let a scientist have a shot. Or are you afraid?--AmesG 11:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
It must be said conservative's understanding of biology does not appear to streach beyond quoting random biolgists. Nematocyte 11:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Not all conservatives, some conservatives are, dare I say it... Atheist. ToryBoy
I think he meant the user Conservative, versus all conservatives. But worse than not understanding biology, Conservative is not even willing to learn, which is just plain sad.--AmesG 11:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Attempts to focus on me and my mental state are rather futile, given that I cited an abundance of creationist scientists and non-creationist scientists. I have noticed a lot of unsubstantive criticism on this talk page although I have certainly taken advantage of constructive criticism that has been offered at this website in regards to this article. Please try to focus the criticism on the article and not on me. It certainly would be taking the high road. Conservative 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Citing non-creationist scientists is hardly meaningful given that you quote them out of context so as to lie about the intent of their statements. Dimensio 19:06, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I've made it quite clear that the entire tactic of simply quoting little soundbites from various scientists in an attempt to distort the scientific posistion is not the proper way to write an article. You could read a few of the mainstream texts on the issue (I gave Futuyama's as a good example) before passing yourself off as an expert. Since you are currently the only person editting the article, focusing on you appears a valid topic. Nematocyte 11:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative - the most obvious criticism of the article, to my mind at least, is that the various sections consist primarily of quotes. I think it would be greatly improved by synthesizing findings and allowing the reader to judge, rather than listing judgments that others have already made.--Murray 11:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Nematocyte, why is it that evolutionist have a strong penchant for claiming things are random. I chose the scientists I cited. They were not "random". Conservative 11:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I'm guessing you picked them from premade lists of quote mines compiled by creationists. Am I close? Nematocyte 11:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Nematocyte, again I think you need to focus on the article and not me. Conservative 11:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
That's a "correct", then? Since your are the only person editting the article I think it's highly important to discuss your credentials on the matter. Perhaps editting should be done by a person who's actually read the titles you're quoting from? Nematocyte 11:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Murray, a substantial portion of the article is non quotes. However, quotes are an effective means to powerfully convey with precision what an expert has to offer. Aschlafly used a number of quotes for his portions of the article. Conservative 11:35, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

OR, we could accurately and concisely convey the scientific consensus position on the matter by reviewing the mainstream authoratative text books and scientific reviews. Just mabey. Crazy thought, really. Nematocyte 11:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please see the article in regards to the scientific consensus and the evolutionary view. Conservative 11:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I'm an actual scientist. I deal with this subject on a day to day basis. Every day I meet and talk to other biologists, and read the literature on the subject. You only need to open the latest issue of Nature, Science, Cell or any other mainstream journal to see the consensus position. Nematocyte 11:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
And a substantial portion of it is quotes. Again, from my perspective the article would be much improved with more original content. This is particularly glaring in the section on experimental data, which contains no actual discussion of the experimental data, merely a secondhand quote.--Murray 11:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I think we're probably about to hear Conservative claim that Nematocyte is a biased, God-hating atheist evolutionist, whose well-reasoned statements are nonetheless not due any deference.--AmesG 11:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Please keep your focus on the article. The talk page is intended for talk about the article and not about me. Notice the heading: Talk:Theory of evolution Conservative 11:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Seeing as how you remain the only editor of the article I would like you explain why that isn't an important topic. Moreover I would like to directly ask, what are your qualifications regarding the understanding of the theory of evolution? Nematocyte 12:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Is this a joke?

I just read through this article and I think I laughed. I can't tell if this entire article was written as a huge joke or not. Is this a serious article?MatteeNeutra 11:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to ridiculeConservative 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
It's not a joke. This is what User:Conservative seriously believes the mainstream scientific position on evolution is. Nematocyte 11:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Again, see the two sections of the article focusing on the Scientific Consensus issue. Conservative 11:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Conservative, it's also a fallacy to, when your reasoning is attacked, fall back on your reasoning as proof of itself. That's circular logic. Your statement of the "current position" is full of errors, that Nematocyte would gladly correct.--AmesG 11:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
The entire article is an appeal to ridicule. I'm not enitrely sure how someone can be so single minded and blunt? At least liberals allow for all PoV to be considered. This article has whiffs of Stalin-esque censorship about it.MatteeNeutra 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't think anyone has been put in a death camp or shot for criticizing this article. Please no theatrics. Conservative 11:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
How many months was it you tried to block JoshuaZ for? Nematocyte 11:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
That does not answer the point that there is definitely censorship of many PoV from this article. Articles are locked, by Sysop's, to stop vandalism. Sysop's should not then continue to edit the page. That is plain abuse of privilege. MatteeNeutra 12:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
The owner of Conservapedia does not seem to mind that I continue to make additions to the article in order to adequetely cover the conservative view. 12:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
That's logic, is it? As I've said before I do not regard YEC as synonymous with conservatism, but rather as a form of paganism. Nematocyte 12:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
(Wow, my colon key has never been used so much) How about covering the liberal PoV, the evolutionist PoV, the actual scientific PoV or many others besides? This site claims to be minimising bias, not creating it.MatteeNeutra 12:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
How, exactly, does the Theory of Evolution page represent a "conservative view". It would appear to represent a "dishonest, lying young-earth-creationist coward view". That is not synonymous with "conservative view". In fact, I am not aware of any single "conservative view" regarding the theory of evolution, as it is not a political subject, until young-earth creationists make it a political subject by trying to use a polticial process to redefine science. Dimensio 12:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I want to ask a serious question that I hope you take a long time to think about. Let's assume, arguendo, that evolution is fact, and "Genesis" is not meant to be read literally, but as an allegory. It's no longer "six twenty-four hour days," but "six ages." How does that change your religion? It certainly makes life more complex, and makes faith more complex. But does that weaken your faith, or strengthen your faith by showing you the the ability of God to hide deeper truths in plain view? Suppose man did evolve from lesser forms of life. God did not create Adam and Eve as they were. Does that end God's role in man's life? Isn't God still responsible (in your view) for making us human, giving us souls, raising us above our base anatomy as provided by nature? Isn't God still great because of that?

The irreducible minimum is this: do you think religion should change over time? Should a set of beliefs change with the believers, or should it ossify a culture, insulating it from all other outside change, and holding all values constant, for all time? Should we return to Job's treatment of pain and suffering, and if we're ever sick, should we just take it, as Job did, or should we try to cure ourselves with modern medicines? Isn't it possible that God sent us medicine through Louis Pasteur, or whoever you choose, as an aid to us?

And finally, is science actually destroying God, or just revealing more of His true nature? And does he suffer from that? Think long and hard before you answer.--AmesG 12:21, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Ames, nicely written. Have you ever read Bradbury's "Christus Apollo?" It speaks just to this: fulfilling God's Will by questing and striving to learn.--Dave3172 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I have always had a Deistic attitude towards religion. Newton's idea of god as a clockmaker appeal to me. I suscribe to evolutionary theory, and to me evolution is just one more example of a superior god. It always seems more majestic to me that god acted as an architect, building the plan to make everything as it is through the use of evolution as a tool to build it. -Gasmonkey

Science versus logic

Conservative, you seem to frequently argue scientific points by quoting the rules of logic. Maybe I can help clear up a little about scientific theory for you. While scientists often work on a project with the goal of proving something to be absolute fact, it is very rare that the material that they are dealing with allows them to prove something to be absolute fact, as logical rules demand. For example, even if a scientist makes a prediction that comes true perfectly, the scientific method precludes him from saying with absolute certainty that his hypothesis is correct.

Because something cannot be proven absolutely true or false, scientists call their ideas "theories". As you know, the word "theory" carries the implication that that conecpt is not proved absolutely true.However, because their experimentation demonstrates that there is a very low statistical probability that it is not true, scientists assume it to be true and continue on creating new experiments that assume that the theory is true to help them better understand the world.

Though you bring up a number of examples where scientists were wrong in past centuries, I think that if you thought about it you might agree that this method has been working quite well recently. It is responisble for modern medicine, transportation, communication, and many other improvements to our quality of life.

So, even though these theories can be disputed by the rules of logic, maybe you can understand that science does not concern itself with something being absolutely correct or incorrect, but instead with being very, very likely to be fact. --Romney4king 16:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Although, now that I'm on the subject of logic, don't you think your entire page on Darwin's health seems to be an ad hominem logical fallacy? --Romney4king 16:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
How many medical journals did I cite regarding his illness and were they reputable medical journals? Where exactly is the ad hominem? Please be more specific.Conservative 17:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative


This page is shameful, leaving aside that it now seems to represent the views of a single editor, it makes the classic mistake of arguing the scientist not the science. a real article would have only a couple of very very high quality quotes and plenty of referenced material. Presenting a conversative point of view does NOT mean we have to leave our brains at the door! --Cgday 17:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Is the article the work of a single editor or does it just seem that way? Please do your homework before expounding. Conservative 17:21, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

No because I said it now represents the view of a single editor in that you seem to be the only person who is able to edit the article - the last 50 edits are yours.

If I wanted to edit this article, how would I do it? because I don't see an edit tab? --Cgday 17:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly created 2 important sections for this article. Case closed. And you might want to ask Scorpionman how he feels about this article. Conservative 17:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
and the rest of us would be able to edit this article via.... --Cgday 17:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
This article piece of crap! No good! Boss says go poop on it! Here I go! OOOOOOOHHHH PBTHBTHBTHBTHBTHB PiltdownMan 22:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Vandal. Scorpionman 19:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Rallying point

I contribute to Conservapedia because I regard it as a potentially worthwhile resource. How worthwhile it turns out to be will depend on a number of things. One of those things is whether it displays the very same type of biased behaviour that it seeks to criticise in Wikipedia. However, I am determined to do my best to ensure that Conservapedia has the best chance possible to achieve its stated aim of being "A conservative encyclopedia you can trust".

At the moment one of the major impediments to that stated aim is this article. At the moment it is, as a contributor above has noted, shameful.

I commented to Aschlafly that the page ought to be openned up and he considered the issue of such importance that he has asked me to post my thoughts on this talk page. I am sure that he would also be interested in hearing from others on this topic.

I ask that contributors interested in having the evolution page openned up leave comments below. --Horace 22:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It's an absolute joke that this page is 1) locked down by 2) a SysOp who is editing the page and 3) turning it into nothing but an attack on the theory. It's an embarrassment, the kind of article that will prevent this project from gaining legitimacy.--Dave3172 00:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
user:Conservative is dominating this page at present, and while I don't monitor this article I have been in edit wars with him before because he's been responsible for some very poor edits (especially on the Homosexuality article). We need to open this up. The solution I'd propose is just to have a lot of people take advantage of the "Watch" feature to ensure it isn't vandalized. It can be protected partially in some way--say, only opening it when a SYSOP is online--in order to keep it safe, but I think it's in the interests of this site's utility to open it to all. I think we may get a ton of vandalism, but we're already getting that. That says to me that the solution may not be protecting articles (and thus allowing them to only be edited by one or two sysops, causing an appreciable decline in fairness and argument quality) but monitoring incoming users more closely. I think we need to put some kind of restriction on account formation, even if it's just to require them to wait a day before editing or to answer an email. At present, we've got a LOT of vandals (probably due to recent media attention), and I think this is needed as a temporary measure. Either way, definitely open the article. I'd do it myself, but I think this needs group support for it to last. --John 00:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Open the article for editing -- what is there to fear except truth? NousEpirrhytos 05:41, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Comment: I can't say what my opinion is until I know more clearly what Conservapedia articulates its mission and policies more clearly than it has. If the policy on this page is that it belongs to User:Conservative, however, then I believe the article should be credited. It should say something like "This article is by..." or "This article is under editorial supervision of..." and it should be signed, preferably by User:Conservative's real name. Dpbsmith 07:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that the primary focus of an article entitled 'Theory of evolution' should be a description of the theory of evolution. Currently, we have two paragraphs of description followed by ten pages of criticism. In its current form, the article tells us almost nothing about what the theory of evolution actually is.
Take a look at any other science page on Conservapedia, and tell me how many scientists are quoted. Few if any, and there's a good reason for that. Most of the quotes in the article don't actually tell us anything of use at all. Look at the first section, on the supposed lack of transitional fossils. Apparently the only thing we need to know about transitionals is that there aren't any. That may be the only concern for creationists, but it's not good enough for an encyclopedia. Where are we told what a transitional is? Why the theory of evolution predicts them? Between which groups they should be found? What criteria should be used to identify one? What candidates have been proposed? Why those candidates allegedly fail? This is all vital information. Without it, the entire section is worthless.
Reading on, it's just more of the same. The article tells us what various people allegedly think about evolution, but it never tells us why they think that, or why it's important. There's no analysis, no critique; indeed, there can't possibly be any critique, without first comprehensively describing the object of that critique. At present it doesn't read like we're presenting people with the facts. It reads like we're presenting people with a conclusion, and telling them not to worry about how we arrived at it. That's precisely antithetic to the purpose of any encyclopedia.
It's fairly clear that something needs to be done to improve the article. It may be that unlocking it is the only way forward, but there are other options. In particular, I remind my fellow editors that a draft of a new article exists. If the main article is to remain locked, then perhaps we can develop that instead and lobby for inclusion of the best material from that. Tsumetai 07:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Agree with every word of the above by Tsumetai.--Murray 13:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I add my name to those who wish the article to be unlocked (or at least that User:Conservative be de-sysoped). What we have at present is and article writen virtually entirely by a person with zero scientific understanding of evolution, who appears not to have read any of the books that are quoted throughout, and is willing to censure and ban all who disagree. Nematocyte 08:00, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that my accidental temp-ban has expired, I can finally add my voice to this. Yes, unlocking this article would be the thing to do, just like having some sort of Admin Review for Conservative (right now, it appears that admins aren't held accountable for anything they do...). The thing that bothers me most with this article is the complete lack of balance and the fact that several paragraphs consist of only a few lines of text and several paragraphs of quotes. The latter also increases the length while decreasing the clarity of the message, thus violating the conciseness rule. And while I'm no specialist when it comes to evolution, I know how to write about a scientific subject, and throwing together a convenient selection of quotes (even if they weren't quote-mined) is not how you do it. --Sid 3050 08:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
As far as I know, the only reason Conservative was given SYSOP status was so he could edit the Evolution article while it was still protected. As a fellow SYSOP, I'd definitely support a review of his status, especially if we open the Evolution article. As I mentioned above, I've had some trouble with him, both with his edits (low quality, biased, poor sources, not well thought-out) and with his bans (often way too fast and harsh, sometimes over personal issues like someone disagreeing with him). When we consider that he was made a SYSOP not to exercise the full privileges but merely so he could edit one protected article, I think it's clear that we need to conduct a full review. --John 12:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Looks like a complete rant to me, not an encyclopedia article. Discredits the whole thing.--Petrus 12:58, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that seems to be quite correct. PhilipB gave him the sysop rights and left this message on Conservative's User Talk page: "You have been made a sysop so that you can implement your propositions to The Theory of Evolution page. Thanks...". --Sid 3050 15:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh give me a break. You guys are just whining because you can't add your bias to the article. Scorpionman 19:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Locked page=weak argument, Scorpionman.--Dave3172 19:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it does seem to be a little bit against the spirit of a wiki to have a page written by one person and who is the only person allowed to edit it. I thought this was supposed to be a collaborative process. Are there any other pages owned in this way in Conservapedia? Will it become the norm? I hope not. --British_cons (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Can you demonstrate the page was written solely by one person? I don't believe you can. I am inbebted to the material Aschafly provided for example although I did reword it to make it more cautionary. Conservative 17:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
You'll keep saying that forever. If an article had a million edits, and 999999 of those edits were by you, you would say "You can't prove that I'm the only author". So sick and tired of this. Starting new edit count... --Sid 3050 17:54, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Edit count: As of this edit, 322 out of 406 edits come from Conservative. Conservative made 79.3% of all edits.
If you want to compare versions: Current version and pre-block version.
Comparing these versions shows that the current article has nothing to do with the community-created effort. So we can safely say that Conservative effectively rewrote the article from scratch. Ignoring all edits up to the block, Conservative made 321 out of 334 edits - or 96.1%. This also implies that Conservative showed his interest in a community effort with a grand total of ONE edit - a revert of obviously silly vandalism about God's blog. --Sid 3050 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, so Conservative needs to be credited with the article along with his name and title (Doctor, Professor, Reverend or whatever) along with an explanation of what studies has carried out or what qualifications he possesses which make him personally and uniquely qualified to express the conservative point of view.--British_cons (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I clearly cited a number of scientists so your point is moot. The article also is meticulously footnoted. Conservative 19:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
As has been noted elsewhere: Citing convenient snippets said by scientists does not automatically make your point scientific or valid. Not even to mention the various issues of quote-mining that quite likely haven't been addressed or corrected yet. Oh, and the article has no footnotes. As such, it's complete nonsense to say that your article is "meticulously footnoted". --Sid 3050 19:55, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
There are over 100 footnotes. Just click the numbers at the end of sentences. Conservative 19:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
You left more than a hundered completely unnamed inline links. Not footnotes. Here, let me quote a dictionary definition of "footnote" for you: "A note placed at the bottom of a page of a book or manuscript that comments on or cites a reference for a designated part of the text." --Sid 3050 20:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
My apologies regarding the use of the word footnote. Regardless, I cited scientists thoughout the work and I gave my sources. Conservative 20:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
The fact that there are "footnotes" doesn't save the article, or make it more scholarly. To be a legitimate article, the footnotes should be real scientific sources, that are verifiable, peer reviewed, etc. Most of the footnotes in this article are to AnswersinGenesis, CreationOnTheWeb, or some other extremely biased and farcical site like it. Mere footnotes alone do not make an article well-researched, Conservative. The footnotes have to have actual substance, too.--AmesG 09:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative I'm not going to bug you about credentials because lately you've been punctilious about citing sources and most of the article is clearly based on published sources. But for several reasons I really do think the page should credit your authorship or editorship... something to show that it is User:Conservative who takes responsibility for its content. Even if you did not write all of it, you did write most of it, and obviously are responsible for the decisions on what should and should not be included in it.

I've suggested the phrase "This page is under the editorial supervision of User:Conservative."

I don't like this article. Nevertheless "Under the editorial supervision of..." should, in time, mean that certain pages are differ in being better: free from vandalism, free from sloppiness, and conforming to Conservapedia's policies. Reliable, finished work; not perpetually half-finished and half a rough draft.

Sign your work. With your "pen name," "User:Conservative," if you like, but sign it. Dpbsmith 20:13, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't put that in (Under the editorial supervision of..." ) because it is not true. Aschafly has and is free to edit this page. It is true that I made his last edit more cautionary and buttressed it with additional material but the fact is Aschlafly has and is free to edit this page. Conservative 20:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Books are full of possible examples to follow. Authors customarily do acknowledge people who have contributed, help, made suggestions, while nevertheless taking responsibility for the finished work. By all means thank Aschlafly and anyone else whose suggestions you've used. Dpbsmith 05:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Is the precise authorship of the article really the only issue raised worthy of a response? Any sysop who edits a protected page must take full responsibility for the content of those edits, and that includes engaging with criticisms made through the talk page. That's the only way to avoid turning such an article into an opinion piece. Tsumetai 05:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Non-scientific sources like "Answers in Genesis" are not true and verifiable. Isn't this a breach of the Conservapedia Commandments?--AmesG 10:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Please explain why Answers in Genesis is unscientific. Scorpion 13:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Have you read their statement of faith? Tsumetai 13:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
The mission statement and the "Statement of Faith" at Answers in Genesis both openly state that the organization has assumed their conclusion of Biblical inerrancy (as they have interpreted the book of Genesis), and that they will seek to fit all data with that conclusion and that they will not, under any circumstances, consider that their assumed conclusion is incorrect. Starting with a conclusion and refusing to revise it, as Answers in Genesis admits to doing, is the antithesis of science. Note that if you are going to accuse "evolutionists" of doing the same thing, you will need to demonstrate that such a thing is done, and show statements to the effect that all scientists who accept evolution will refuse to consider that the theory of evolution is incorrect (note that Lewontin "Divine Foot in the door" quote is not eqivalent to saying that he will refuse to reject the theory of evolution; Lewinton was referring specifically to scientific methodology, not the theory of evolution, and he was speaking merely of invoking supernatural explanations, not denial of the supernatural entirely). Merely asserting, without evidence, that those who accept the theory of evolution are "assuming their conclusion" and that they refuse to consider that their conclusion is incorrect is not logically equivalent to my pointing out that the Answers in Genesis team openly admits to doing such. Dimensio 16:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


"Evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found - only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist." And life has had well over 2 billion years to evolve. Do the math -- 140 years is a blink in time. BTW, whoever wrote this apparently knows little or srcheology, geology, biology or paleontology (striking out on the "ologies", it seems. ;) The person might want to do some work studying up on mutations as well -- they occur suddenly, and if dominant genetically and then passed on via breeding, will become the normal form. Of course, finding the first bearer of the mutation is like finding a specific grain of sand in the Sahara.
And no, a kangaroo is not going to have a human baby or whatever the fave creationist strawman is, so please save that argument. NousEpirrhytos 05:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Now come on, this whole argument of yours is pointless. For one thing, you don't know that life is 2 billion years old, you claim this because of the problematic method of radiometric dating. As for the stuff on mutations, most of them are harmful or neutral and therefore will not become the "norm" but will be eliminated by natural selection (yes, I do believe in natural selection) Certain features in animals actually can change very quickly, such as the beaks of the finches on the Galapagos Islands after a particularly bad drought. The ones with short beaks died because they couldn't get the food the ones with longer beaks could, so the next generation had longer beaks. Now this is NOT macroevolution; it is the changing of certain features to cause the animal to be able to respond favorably to its environment. Were some situation to arise that would cause the finches with longer beaks to die out more quickly, the beaks of the next generation would be shorter. That would reverse the process. And no one is using the "Kangaroo giving birth to a human" argument; that claim is a straw-man. Scorpionman 19:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
How, exactly, is radiometric dating "problematic"? Dimensio 22:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Here. Scorpionman 14:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
An interesting article. It offers examples of inapplicable dating methods yeilding incorrect dates (which is why those dating methods would not actually be used in those situations) and completely neglects to mention that responsible scientists apply multiple dating methods to single samples to determine possible errors. Claims regarding K-Ar dating on volcanic rocks is discussed here, though I suspect that you will dismiss the claims made there as "biased" without actually explaining why the counter-argument is faulty. Ignoring important facts because they show a "refutation" to be faulty is a technique that I Have come to expect from creationist sources. Dimensio 18:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
And I have come to the conclusion that any attempt to show the truth of how faulty your methods are will be quickly dismissed as nonsense. You obviously didn't read the article carefully, just quickly skimmed over it and concluded that it was wrong. But, since you conclude this, you could take it to that article's talk page, and see what they say. Scorpionman 00:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Fascinating. I provide a link to a refutation of the specific claims made by your referenced article, and you make no demonstration of having studied the refutation, instead accusing me of not reading your referenced article. Would that not make you a hypocrite? Dimensio 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Did you take my advice and post your complaint on their talk page? Why don't you do that quick. I know what I'm going to find on your link, but I'll go there anyway, just to be fair. Scorpion 13:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
BTW, I'll bet CreationWiki has a response to your "refutation". It won't matter to you, because everything creationists write is prejudice and hate language to you, but that doesn't matter to me. Scorpion 13:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I have never claimed that "everything creationists write is prejudice and hate language". I have observed, however, that much of what creationists write in support of their agenda or against the theory of evolution is dishonest. For example, your claim that "everything creationists write is prejudice and hate language" to me is a perfect example of creationist dishonesty. Dimensio 16:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I certainly have heard that claim before. Haven't you heard about the "Christian fascists" who are trying to take over America? It's actually pretty amusing Scorpiontalk 16:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Changes to Article

Copy + Paste this:

Would be a step in the right direction, but licensing and politics (Conservapedia was founded to fight the "liberal bias" some people see in Wikipedia) speak against it. --Sid 3050 12:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Copying and pasting stuff from Wikipedia would indeed be going against licensing. And of course, Wikipedia writes from the false assumption that Theory of Evolution is true, so it would be destroying the article. Scorpionman 19:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Are you saying that the theory of evolution is false? What evidence have you to support your claim, and if you have such evidence, why have you withheld it in favour of dishonest out-of-context quote mining and outright falsehoods -- such as the lie that there exist no transitional fossils -- on the main page? Dimensio 22:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
And how do you know it is true? Scorpionman 13:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I do not "know" the theory of evolution to be true. I merely accept it as the current best explanation given existing evidence. Now that your question is shown to be based upon a false premise, can you actually answer the question that I have asked? |Dimensio 18:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Excuse me but isn't the whole point to find of an article to find out what something IS? It's not going to do me any good to look up something that the writers don't believe in as they're going to give me a biased view. I use wikipedia as a resource for SCHOOL. Separation of church and state? The church isn't funding the school (not mine, at least), and a lot of the things on this site if i cited them would get me a ZERO. Your main source of propaganda is that you are the UNBIASED, yes UNBIASED online encyclopedia. How can you be unbiased if in your very name you have an adjective that serves as a label? It's reall lame that you make it sound as if the only reason you created this site was because wikipedia sucks. That's fine if that's your opinion, but it makes a pretty poor argument for your site when you say you're unbiased. Now what you really should do is just simply say, this is the conservative opinion, and leave it at that. If you're going to say this is what it is at least say WHAT it is, and present ALL SIDES. |sundevilfire

Wikipedia doesn't do this. And by the way, if our definition of evolution is wrong, then what's the correct one? I've read all kinds of definitions in encyclopedias but tell me what yours is. Scorpion 13:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't say the definition of it was wrong, there are lots of applications for the theory of evolution I'm sure, I was just saying that I don't look something up for someone's opinion on a subject, generally. |sundevilfire

This is funny

"...a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the United States National Academy of Sciences do not believe there is a God.[85] Given this state of affairs, a future paradigm shift from the macroevolutionary position to a creationist position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists."

What has the worldview got to do with facts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Messpm (talk)

Absolutely everything! Now I have only read your comment and not the article, but worldview has everything to do with every aspect of life. It is our philosophical glasses, as some have put it. Both the evolutionist and the creationist look at the same data, but they arrive at two very different conclusions. Why is that? It's because of their starting point, philosophical foundational basis, or worldview about life. Everyone has a worldview whether they think so or not. By saying one does not have a worldview, they are infact creating one. So how do we view the world and life? Are we a meaningless speck in a grand universe without meaning? That would be the basis of evolution (which is really based in naturalism), although many evolutionists contradict their beliefs by living a life of "purpose" ;-). Or infact are we created by an infinite, personal, triune Creator, who has a wonderful plan for those who love Him? Personally I like the second option. Not just because it is the only complete philosophical worldview there is (anything based in naturalism or man-first will never work). Not just because it provides a good feeling of security, and it does. But ultimately because it is based in reality and is provable. --Ymmotrojam 15:10, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Where your argument falls apart though is this: evolution is not a philosophy. Those of us that believe that evolution is supported by the evidence do not believe in evolution. We don't have faith in evolution. It's why reading the terms Evolutionist and Darwinist can be so darn right grating on the sensibilities. Recognizing that evolution is supported by the evidence affects my "world view" not one iota. I have never felt without meaning or alone because of it.
People that believe in a philosophy or have faith in a philosophy seldom spend as much of their time attempting to disprove it as people who recognize evolution do. Because every time a biologist or a paleonotologist or any one else in science goes out and performs an experiment regarding evolution, believe it or not, that is the only possible significant outcome of the experiment. Either one tiny bit of evidence supporting evolution is going to be dumped on the already mountainous pile or the entire theory is going to come crashing down. Imagine working so hard to disprove something you believe in. But that is science. --Myk 15:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Evolutionists believe in their starting point, which is a way of viewing the world. Theistic evolution aside for the moment, generally most evolutionists deny that God exists. Do you not think that believing that will affect the way you look at science? You are correct, you cannot believe in science, because it is what it is. But is it possible that one's worldview can twist their view of science? If you believe there is no God, you're going to try desperately to prove that. Creationists believe there is no need to prove God because His existence is self-evident.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..." --Romans 1:18-22
Please support your claim that "generally most evolutionists deny that God exists" with evidence. Dimensio 11:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Science and God can be in the same sentence and not contradict, because God created a scientific universe. --Ymmotrojam 15:43, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Recommended Reading

Though I like the idea of a recommended reading section I can't help but notice that all the books listed are pro-creationist. The Origin of Species should be added in at the very least. A free copy of it can be found at Sulgran 20:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

WHAT? And have people make up their OWN minds? Are you insane? Crackertalk 20:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I have a link to that free copy of Darwin's Origin of the Species in the Theory of evolution article. Please see the quote box of Darwin's explantion of how whales came about. Conservative 20:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Clarification: Conservative means "Unnamed Link #36" there. However, he fails to answer why the book is not mentioned in the section "Recommended Books For Further Reading (including free online versions)" or why all books in that section happen to be pro-creationism. --Sid 3050 20:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The bottom line

The article as currently written is a travesty. The arguments for why have already been given many many times. It is misinformed, dishonest, and most certainly NOT the "conservative" position. It is a YEC creationist position. As long as this state of affairs remains, there is simply no way conservapedia can claim to be less biased than wikipedia. Period. Plunge 14:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

indeed, check this out In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970's the scientific communities consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and it appears as if the Bible turned out to be right in this matter. [93] Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and is appears as if the Bible was correct in this matter. [94] Many creationists believe that the Bible has many examples of the Bible showing an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was written.[95][96]. If this is intended to be a creationist wikipedia - it should say so on the front page. --Cgday 17:10, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

This really is pathetic

For a site that basis it's existence on bias in Wikipedia (which you are free to edit by the way) this article is incredible. It read like it's copied from a creationist website and doesn't even attempt to show the other side of the argument (you know, like all the transitional fossils that exist). I'm not allowed edit this right now (too new I presume) but when I am I intend to fix by quoting liberally from talkorigins and talkdesign. Ataxia 17:40, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, but the article has been fully protected since February 23 or 24, depending on timezone. Only sysops can edit it. Since its protection (against liberal vandals like you... and me... and most people who posted on this talk page...), it has been pretty much under Conservative's sole control. --Sid 3050 17:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
My guess is that Conservative is a 14 year old home schooled kid who hasn't really ever had his worldview challenged in any meaningful way.--Jack 17:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

How can I get it changed (to include some facts)? Ataxia 18:00, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Short answer: You don't.
Long answer: The current article represents The Truth. God's word (=the Bible (=KJV, if possible (=but only the non-counterfeit KJV))) is that He created everything in seven days. Including Dinosaurs. Conservapedia is biased only towards The Truth. As such, evolutionist nonsense should not be cited as fact here. Creationist scientists (=the only scientists who are willing to embrace The Truth, even though the scientific consensus tries to ignore it and shuns the few who dare to raise their voices) have supplied more than enough proof for creationism and against evolution. There is no debate over what side is right - it has been proven that the evolutionist view is built on lies and ignorance, and that there is absolutely no pro-evolution evidence that supports the evolutionist view.
Long answer, without the propaganda: You don't. However, feel free to show the site to your friends. They might get a good chuckle out of it ;) --Sid 3050
Sid, I prefer the NASB version of the Bible myself. Conservative 18:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Jack, I graduated from a secular university. Do you see what happens when evolutionists engage in their speculations? Conservative 18:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Oh well, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The fact that you are over the age of 16 and that you engage others the way that you do here is really sad. Good luck with the site--the Internet could use a few more laughs.--Jack 19:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Jack, I wouldn't complain about how I engage others given your recent post to Aschlafly - Do you think you could have been more vague regarding your criticism at that page? How about being more specific and constructive rather than engage in ranting? I would also suggest and end to the childish speculation about me. Conservative 19:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Side note: That Vonnegut article... isn't terribly awesome, to put it mildly. Criticism of that article (and this article here... and this site) should be appreciated, not derided. --Sid 3050 19:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Sid, he didn't offer constructive criticism or edits to that page. He implied there were errors but didn't say what they were. It was merely a rant regarding the Vonnegut article. Conservative 19:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Look, when the founder of a Wiki site posts an article about an author and gets the name of his most famous book wrong, that deserves derision. I could spend my time correcting the endless numbers of errors on this site or I can gently mock. But as of now your site is considered a joke. It will continue to be seen that way unless you get a little more professional in your presentation. You can take my mocking personally or you can take it as constructive criticism. --Jack 19:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Was that gentle mocking at the Vonnegut article talk page? I guess I can't tell the difference between ranting and gentle mocking. Conservative 19:42, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
By the way, I didnt't find this part of your post to be gentle mocking: "This site isn't just mocked for the ridiculous world views that are being put on open display..."[1] Rant on, Jack. Rant on. Conservative 19:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Whatever Jack's tone, he raises a legitimate concern. The [2] article does have some basic errors that should have been caught by a routine let-me-double-check-this-before-posting proofreading. Not that any of us are perfect, but if we expect basic proofreading from high school students in their coursework, it is not too much to expect it from ourselves here. --Hsmom 10:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

A long time ago a king complained to Nasrudin, "My people do not always tell me the truth. This bothers me." Nasrudin answered. "It does not matter whether something is absolutely true or not. What matters is that something is true in relation to other things."

The king was not pleased. "This is just one of your tricks. A thing is true or it is not true."

The king thought of a plan to make his people tell him the truth. He had a gallows built just inside the city gates. He told the heralds to announce, "If persons want to enter the city, they must first answer a question asked by the Captain of the King's Guards. If the answer is not truth, the person will be hanged."

Nasrudin came forward. "I want to enter the city."

"Why do you come?" asked the Captain.

"To be hanged," answered Nasrudin.

"This is not true," said the Captain.

"If I am not telling the truth, you must hang me," explained Nasrudin.

"But, this would make it the truth," said the Captain. "I cannot hang you if you tell the truth."

"You must decide, which truth is the real truth," replied Nasrudin.

--Iranian fable

Boethius 18:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm beggin' ya, please stop calling us evolutionists. Myk 19:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
That's a great story, but I really don't have much of an idea what it has to do with this article, or what your worldview is, Boethius. And if you are an evolutionist, Myk, then why do you object to being called one? I don't object to being called a creationist. Scorpionman 22:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
The point of my tale is, truth is not something that you can have or not have -- aside from a few very simple truths (the Earth revolves around the sun, human beings have two hands and two feet), most big truths require critical evaluation of complex, sometimes contradictory, sometimes ambiguous information. The problem I see here is that a certain *interpretation* is being insisted on as *true*, which to my mind shows a want of careful -- or honest -- thought Boethius 08:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
It's because it sounds unprofessional. Evolutionist makes it sound like just another philosophy or religion rather than the truth. And they don't want to admit it's just a biased look at science. --Ymmotrojam 22:40, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
It's because evolution is not a belief, it's not a philosophy. Recognizing that evolution is supported by scientific evidence in no way shapes my world view. See, I don't even capitalize it. Evolution is not an -ism. Creationism is an -ism so "Creationist" is a perfectly viable label for someone who believes in it. Myk 22:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
An "Evolutionist" is someone who is an expert in the field of evolutionary biology, like a zoologist is an expert on zoology. Misuse of the term by creationists simply emphasises their lack of scientific experience. Nematocyte 09:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
You can say all the biased nonsense you want, but it's not going to alter the fact that evolution is a belief; it is simply an interpretation of evidence, and some evidence (such as malignant mutations) contradicts it. I wish you'd stop labelling evolution as "science"; it is a theory, not science. It's a belief, just like creationism is. Scorpionman 15:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The theory of evolution is not an "interpretation". It is a conclusion drawn from evidence, and it is subject to revision or rejection should contradictory evidence be observed. Creationism, by contrast, is an assumed conclusion, where evidence is "interpreted" after the fact to fit the preassumed conclusion, where evidence is thrown out or ignored if it fails to support the preassumed conclusion and there is no possibility of rejecting or modifying the conclusion. Claiming that the theory of evolution and creationism are just two different "beliefs" is fundamentally dishonest. Moreover, malignant mutations do not contradict the theory of evolution, and only someone fundamentally ignorant of biology or fundamentally dishonest in general would claim that it is a contradiction. Given that you seem to believe that "theory" and "science" are mutually exclusive concepts, when in fact theories are the endpoints of scientific inquiry and a scientific explanation requires a great deal of confidence before it is labelled "theory" suggests the former, rather than the latter. Dimensio 19:482 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a description of what the theory is about wouldn't go amiss. Also the creationist viewpoint is far frm proven from a SCIENTIFIC perspective. This article reads like a creationist propaganda page. Much of it is lies. There are transitional fossils, just not many. All of your examples of IC have been refuted. If creationism really is the thruth then why do you have to lie? The fact that you have no description of how evlution works(or is supposed to work) shows you probably don't understand what you are ranting about. I note also (Conservative) that I posted a comment on your talk page about ths article and you just deleted it without answering. Why? Ataxia 09:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Different title?

I propose that we change the title to "Scientific theory of evolution". My reasoning is that it does involve scientific things, it's just not adequate or good at solving the important questions. --Ymmotrojam 20:33, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I think we should keep it simple and leave it as it is. We don't have a complicated title for the Big Bang Theory article. Conservative 20:36, 18 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
You don't need a complicated title for the Big Bang Theory because it does exactly what this article should do. Explain the Theory, then say some disagree. Then add a nice link to your opinions on evolution. Jrssr5 19:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
But the article as it is has only very little to do with evolution. Actually, the first sentence is not even correct!
The Theory of evolution is a scientific theory which states that all organisms on earth originated from a single common ancestor.
Where is the cite for this???
(A more accurate title would be "A Refutation of The Theory of Evolution".
But seeing as you have full editorial control, I guess you can call it "the best science I can find that supports MY view of things." Crackertalk 09:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
What about making this article about what the Theory of Evolution is and having another one with Critism or Conservative's View on Evolution? Jrssr5 09:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
But that is what it is! If it's not, then what is it? Scorpionman 15:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Scorpionman, you may have just delivered the absolute best reason why this article needs to be unprotected. Myk 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Again we need to know what "is" "is". If the article is called "The Theory of Evolution it should describe the theory of evolution, but it only gives short shrift to the theory itself and goes right into a critical analysis of the theory. so the article's title is in error. --Crackertalk 15:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
You are incorrect. The theory of evolution does not state that all extant organisms are descended from a single common ancestry. The theory of evolution explains the mechanism by which extant organisms emerged from common ancestry. Theories explain mechanisms. If the author of this article does not understand that much, then he or she is not qualified to write authoritatively about any scientific theory, much less the theory of evolution. Dimensio 19:42, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, but there's his out, don't you know? There isn't SQUAT about "the theory of Evolution" in this article, merely a rather long and pedantic rant about why it's wrong! --Crackertalk 19:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Scorpionman, you asked "But that is what it is! If it's not, then what is it?" I would suggest that you find a few other encyclopedias and look at how they arrange their articles on evolution and see what information they include. You can find one or more encyclopedias at your local library. Conservapedia's evolution article is merely an editorial, not an encyclopedic style article. Land Dweller 12:55, 20 March 2007 (PDT)

I'm asking what your definition of evolution is. If our definition is wrong, what's yours? Scorpion 13:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Check your copy of Futuyama or Ridley for the authoritative texts on evolution and it's definitions. Nematocyte 13:22, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm asking for your definition. Scorpiontalk 16:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's a cite

"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

Adolf's using the word in it's original meaning - to change from one form to another. The quote therefore has nothing to do with the article. Were you trying to aledge something? Nematocyte 07:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Original meaning? Has the meaning of "evolution" evolved? Perhaps so, perhaps it's now evolved into something to deny what it really means. That almost makes sense. RobS 11:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that's what's going on, Rob. The evolutionists are changing the definition of evolution so that they can deny our points. Scorpionman 15:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Like many words, evolution has multiple meanings. Hitler is not refering to the biological process here. The quote is indeed anti-Christian but it has nothing to do with the biological concept of evolution. He is saying that the concept of a soul would have grown without the influence of Christianity. Myk 15:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Actually, we are pointing out that Hitler was not referring to the theory of evolution. The word "evolution" existed before Darwin was born. Apparently you like to dishonestly pretend otherwise. Dimensio 19:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Students use

Supposedly this site was created with the intention of students to use it. Right in the first line the article jumps into Darwinism. This is supposed to be an article on evolution not an article on the idea that all life came from a single organism. The political debate that is going should not affect the educational content of the entry. If i was a high school student learning Biology, I would like to type in the word "Evolution" and learn about natural selection. "Darwinism" is evolution. And isn't that what students should learn? Science? Also, I can't imagine anyone thinking that this article is too "liberal" - read further.--AmesG 23:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Which Christians?

All over Conservapedia I keep finding 'Christians believe this' and 'Christians believe that', when in fact the vast majority of world Christians (Catholics, Anglicans...) don't believe anything of the kind. Whether in respect of evolution, creation or anything else, the project seems to have suffered a narrow-minded American Protestant scriptural-literalist take-over. Isn't it time contributors tried to adopt a more thoughtful approach reflecting the views of Christians generally (if, that is, it has to adopt any view at all), instead of those of the unrepresentative extreme right-wing fundamentalist nutters who, except in the USA, are very much in a minority? --Petrus 12:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

And everywhere else has suffered a narrow-minded atheistic evolutionist take-over. Scorpionman 13:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
And I view your brand of Christianity as paganism. Now if the name calling is over, User:Petrus has raised some important points about the diversity of Christianity. Nematocyte 13:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, he has. Thinking of Christians as a block of people unified in dogma and beliefs is a foolish undertaking. Even early, Christianity was not a unified group -- as it grew new schools of thought, called heresies, (originally without the perjorative meaning) popped up all over, and for good reason: the bible, both OT and NT a chock-full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and each sect has taken from it what it wants. Thus, Christianity runs the gamut from a wrathful god whom none can please to a loving god whose sacrifice of his son redeemed all sins unilaterally. NousEpirrhytos 13:50, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Pray tell me what these so-called "inconsistencies and contradictions" are. Scorpiontalk 17:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Textual differences between Galatians and other Pauline epistles would be one. But all those are accounted for because Paul pitched the Gospel differently to different communities: there's no rhyme or reason to most of the epistles. Also, a few lines in the Synoptic gospels contradict e/o, but that's also accounted for since they were written at different times, just like any historical source. That said, it is true that most Christians aren't YEC.-AmesG 22:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Source of the theory

It might work more smoothly if the source of the theory is immediately presented in the first paragraph. The reason I say this is because there are at least 3 issues that everyone knows about, but have not always separated.

  • Darwin's theory of evolution; All life has descended from a common ancestor scientific source website
  • Evolution; Whether descended from a common ancestor or not, life evolves, it changes over time to meet changing conditions. (this is addressed pretty closely by science and documented and widely accepted to be true)
  • There is obviously some commonality to all living things. Possibly this is a sort of spiritual energy. Biology is a science that begin as a study of Life, but became a study of lifeforms. No one denies that all living things have something in common. The difficulty revolves around defining this commonality. Darwin does an end run around the idea "what is common to all life" by simply stating, "all life has a common ancestor", but if a person will think for a moment, there are other possibilites. With or without a common ancestor, A Creator might have made a life energy that manifests in living things. Darwin, in looking for a common ancestor, might have overlooked a possibility. Life might be a spiritual energy. Terryeo 13:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps....sounds pretty new-age to me. In any case, science can never determine any "spiritual energy" as we're into the paranormal again. NousEpirrhytos 13:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
As the article smashes through to the surreal, "paranormal" would be a distinct improvement.--Crackertalk 13:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)