Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rejection of evolution by religious groups article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 |
Rejection of evolution by religious groups was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Rejection of evolution by religious groups:
|
A summary of this article appears in Evolution. |
For more contentious discussion of these issues, please see the newsgroup Talk.origins (Wikipedia link has information on how to access the newsgroup). For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Creation vs. evolution debate
Archives |
---|
The text of the Creation vs. evolution debate page was cut from the Creationism page on October 29, 2004 to reduce the size of the Creationism page to reasonable limits. It was subsequently renamed Creation-evolution controversy to conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy on January, 28 2005. |
For full discussions prior to October 29, 2004, see Talk:Creationism and archives.
|
|
No mention of drug resistance?
Didn't seen any mention of drug resistance which is another argument for evolution. See for example the article on antibiotic resistance. The diagram in the article shows a: "Schematic representation of how antibiotic resistance evolves via natural selection. The top section represents a population of bacteria before exposure to an antibiotic. The middle section shows the population directly after exposure, the phase in which selection took place. The last section shows the distribution of resistance in a new generation of bacteria. The legend indicates the resistance levels of individuals." Pgr94 15:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- This article is meant to be an overview of the "creation-evolution controversy", not a detailed listing of every "argument for evolution". The closest article to the latter topic is evidence of common descent. HrafnTalkStalk 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Slightly more clarification, this is a page about primarily the political dispute, since there is no real scientific dispute. The page should not attempt to 'prove' evolution. WLU 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pgr94, you correct that antibiotic resistance is another argument for evolution. In fact, it is "slam-dunk" evidence for evolution by natural selection. However, the effect of this evidence specifically on the creation-evolution political controversy has been limited, because creationists tend to see this only as evidence of what they call "microevolution", which they don't generally deny due to the overwhelming evidence in support of it. It might be worth including drug resistance as an example in another evolution-related article, if it is not already mentioned (just remember not to use the Wikipedia article as a source). — DIEGO talk 16:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The biggest problem we have here is that there is not enough room in the articles of some of these topics for all the material that people want to insert in them. In areas like evolution and creationism, there are literally hundreds of linked articles that should be read to get a broad overview of the science and the politics. No single article can address it all, and a single article that did try to do this would be so large and unweildy that no one could edit it or write it or read it.--Filll 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole world is evidence of evolution. The article could probably read: "For more evidence of evolution, see Special:Random" User:Krator (t c) 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that the article is about the main classes of opinion, not the detailed arguments. Scientifically, antiobiotic resistance is pretty much "slam-dunk" as DIEGO puts it. As I wasn't aware that creationists make a distinction between micro- and macro- evolution, I thought it might be worth mentioning. Cheers. Pgr94 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Creation-evolution controversy article paints a distorted picture of the debate
Unsubstantiated WP:SOAP userfied to User talk:Jhampson4 HrafnTalkStalk 09:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The debate influencing society
The debate has brought about 2 interesting side results
A board game (http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=536&Category_Code=) and a MMORPG (http://crevoscope.com), and I am sure some other such things. A mention of them should exist in the article, at least in passing... PS I am new here, so I apologize if I made some kind of error of etiquette... 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Yaroslav
- Influences on society: making a lot of people angry by threatening to make many more ignorant. User:Krator (t c) 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think those are important enough to merit mention yet per WP:WEIGHT. But Krator, let's please try to maintain a civil discussion. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- That was my point too, yes :) User:Krator (t c) 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think those are important enough to merit mention yet per WP:WEIGHT. But Krator, let's please try to maintain a civil discussion. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Living Waters is part of Ray Comfort & Kirk Cameron's rather lightweight ministry, which tends to employ silly gimmicks (of which this boardgame is one). Unless substantive comment on this particular gimmick can be found in WP:RSs, I see no reason to mention it in the article. HrafnTalkStalk 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
gallup poll
i've reverted the recent revert. the numbers given are nowhere in that video, which incidentally i watched before you reverted, as my original intention was to find the correct link and rewrite the sentence to include the sample population.--Mongreilf (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Creation & Evolution similarities
Creation and Evolution have similar traits.Evolutionists believe that the universe came from a cosmic egg which exploded in the big bang.Creationists believe God formed life.Both beliefs have something that has been there before Time began.God or a cosmic egg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus Is risen (talk • contribs) 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stunning. Baegis (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The differences are bigger than the similarities. One depends on data and other evidence. The other depends on the ranting and raving of assorted self-appointed religious experts and flakes who demand that everyone else accept their own personal interpretation of one version of thousands of contradictory error-ridden versions of a self-contradictory ancient text literally, in spite of disagreeing with the product of thousands of years of analysis by the greatest religious scholars that ever lived (such as St. Augustine, Maimonides and a who's who of the gifted and renowned minds who have devoted their entire lives to studying the scriptures). Feel free to believe whatever you personally want to. However, when you want to impose fruitcake ideas on everyone else by force, then there is a problem. Ok?--Filll (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Evolution Biased
[ WP:SOAPbox-rant userfied to User talk:The Other Side of the Argument ] HrafnTalkStalk 12:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Why was the entire section removed? I thought a valid discussion was going on. The Other Side of the Argument (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because your claim that we should present the scientific merits of ID is itself without merit, as ID has no scientific merit. Raul654 (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was not a "valid discussion" per WP:TALK. You were attempting to debate the validity of ID, not the contents of the article. You were also citing a patently absurd source: some random apologetics blogger's made-up "trillions of trillions of trillions" number. HrafnTalkStalk 03:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was not attempting to debate the merits of ID. I was trying to point out that the arguments of only one side is presented in the article. What evidence is there that the source of my evidence is bad. It seems the only ones trying to debate are the ones saying ID has no merits. The Other Side of the Argument (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is for discussing changes to the article. If you have specific proposals for changes to the article, feel free to share them. The rest of it really isn't relevant here. Guettarda (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- We get a lot of trolls and sockpuppets here, read through the archive and see if you're offering anything new. Otherwise, we've seen it before, read WP:V and WP:RS for why random blogs aren't sources. WLU (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- Religion articles needing attention
- WikiProject Religion articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Creationism articles
- High-importance Creationism articles
- WikiProject Creationism articles
- B-Class history of science articles
- High-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists