Talk:Creation and evolution in public education

Worldwide View

I think this tag should be removed. Since religion in schools is centered almost exclusively in Bible-belt in America and the mid-east. What are some other thoughts on this?Reinoe (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not like these sorts of tags. To describe it everywhere in the world is a daunting task. We do however, have a lot about the US and Europe. We could do with a bit more description of it in the Muslim world if we can get good sources. Some for Turkey should be available.--Filll (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that we don't describe the Middle East at all, and dedicate most of the article to the US, I think this is a pretty poor argument. But wait, it's a lot of work! Let's just remove the tag! (Joking). See 'U.S.-centric' section above. Richard001 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

While it may be a significant issue in the Middle East, I would suspect that we have very little in the way of WP:RSs about there. Because in Europe teaching Creationism in public schools is neither unconstitutional, nor is there such a large, organised, vocal constituency pressing for it, receives considerably less coverage than the US. Any imbalance would therefore seem to be a natural result of WP:V. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are sources, some of which I have found myself. However, because they are from other countries, often not even speaking English, it will be a bit harder to research. Still, this is no excuse for having a US/Eurocentric article, especially when the case in some of these countries is just as bad as, if not worse, than in the US. Richard001 (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok Richard001. Here is a novel idea. Why don't you take all those hundreds of verifiable reliable sources you have found for the status of creationism in public education in the Middle East, in Asia, in East Asia and South Asia, in South America, in Europe and so on, and write a nice article about it? You can start in a sandbox if you like. I think that would be a nice contribution. Thank you for offering.--Filll (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly under no obligation to write the article, and I think it's really up to you to at least search for some sources before you tell me there aren't any (though you may have, for all I know). I have little doubt there are such sources, such as the one on Turkey I've provided on the to do list above (I presume, after all, that most countries have some sort of press and media, and written laws). If someone wants to add a section on Turkey to the article detailing the information available in that article I'll be happy to look for more sources, and will accept removal of the globalize tag if I can't provide any. Richard001 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard001, if you can show the sources here for discussion, or start new sections, even a little information would be a great improvement provided the sources are good. One thought – there are vocal creationists in Australia and New Zealand, have they succeeded in getting a foothold in schools? ... dave souza, talk 15:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical as to whether "there are vocal creationists in Australia and New Zealand" that are vocal/prominent in those countries, as opposed to acting as exporters of creationist materials for the US market. There just isn't sufficient appetite nor newsworthiness in those countries for home-grown creationism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly creationists in Aust. and NZ, but they would be too small a minority to have any political power. I've never even heard of a case of anti-evolution education in NZ, though a poll I read shows there are a small minority who share the same sentiments as those in the US and elsewhere. I don't think something of such a small scale would be worth mentioning in the article though, except perhaps to say that there are small minorities elsewhere, but that they don't have much political clout. Richard001 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course Richard001 you are under no obligation to do anything. My point is, you seem to think you have access to many references, including some that are not in English that address this topic. That is great.

But, I have encountered now literally hundreds or even thousands of people who come to Wikipedia to complain about how the articles are written. Fair enough; I will admit that at least 99% of the articles that I see when I choose one at random are complete pieces of trash. They have bad English, bad references, uneven citation formats, dead links, are incomplete etc. So there is no shortage of work to do.

However, it would be nice if some of those who are fond of pointing out the shortcomings of the articles would take up the challenge and help us do some writing. When they say that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can write", they mean exactly that. And when you come to volunteer someone else's unpaid time to a task, they might not be as enthusiastic as you are to perform the task. So since you see the task as important and you have the means to correct it, WP:So fix it. Thanks. --Filll (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no Filll, I don't have time to, and I already do much editing as it is. In case you haven't noticed, I already am a contributor to Wikipedia - among the top 1500 or so. I edit a small number of pages and comment on a larger number. If I fixed every issue I pointed out I would have to spend all my time editing Wikipedia, and do so extraordinarily fast. That doesn't mean that people pointing out problems and not fixing them is a bad thing - it's quite constructive. Still, it's not that big a task is it? How about you fix it?

I've never said I have access to lots of articles, by the way. I'm simply saying it seems implausible that suitable sources do not exist. Richard001 (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh how nice, a snide remark and an attack. Well let's take a look at your claims, shall we? You have been here 9 months longer than I have. Yet, I have in excess of 4000 more mainspace edits than you, and in excess of 11000 more total edits than you.

You have position 1439 on the contribution list, and that is great. But I am at position 483. I have written plenty of articles and continue to do so. So I do not need to hear this kind of stuff from you. Either fix this article, or not; I don't care. But do not attack me because I think I am doing a bit here as well, you know? In fact, you only make 2.28 edits per page, and I make almost 10 edits per page, so I am not flitting from page to page dropping bombs and doing drive-by criticism. I actually roll up my sleeves and actually do something here. So please, I do not want to hear more of this kind of criticism from you; if you do not want to help, fine, thanks for your kind words. --Filll (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to have an edit-count war with you. My point is that giving me the 'so fix it' crap is annoying. And again, you're making things up. What attack? Richard001 (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you purport not to be here to write an article for the encyclopedia or to share your copious references you have found or to have an "edit-count war" with me. So what, pray tell, are you here for exactly?--Filll (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously to counter your misinformation, my friend. Could you point out where I say "copious references", or would you prefer to simply admit half of your replies are simply nonsense? Perhaps you would like to reply with a logical fallacy of some sort. Can I interest you in an ad hominem tu quoque? Oh, I see you've used that one already... Richard001 (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you have made your purpose here clear. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious why I'm here; because I watch this page, and someone has brought up an issue, and I've replied to it. Now if anything more is to be said, let's keep it on topic. Richard001 (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have something of value to contribute, go ahead. If not, that is fine too. Otherwise...--Filll (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Right... Anyway, I've added a section on Turkey based on the article I mentioned. Since this is only based on one reference, more research is needed for this section. As for other countries, I definitely don't have time to do any further research right now. You may take the globalize tag down if you wish; I'll try to find sources for more hard-line countries at some point in the future. Any comments on the last point in the to-do list are welcome. Richard001 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that about taking it down. The more I look into it the more clear it is that this article is woefully underdeveloped. There is no mention of Latin America or Africa, which are both being swept by fundamentalist Christianity, and no mention of Middle Eastern countries much more conservative than Turkey. I think the material on the United States should also have its own article, as it's given too much weight here. It would be wasteful just to trim it down instead, and as a separate article it could certainly be expanded, perhaps to be a little broader in scope as well (e.g. mentioning non-public institutions)? Richard001 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards to verifiability, there probably won't be much we can find (or at least read) for certain countries, but their governments will surely have laws about what is supposed to be taught and not taught in public schools, so that's what we really need to go after. Richard001 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Split discussion

Re: "It has been suggested that some content from this article be split into a separate article entitled Creation and evolution in United States education."

• Oppose: (1) the issue is only notable in the US in public education, meaning that the name of the proposed new article is inaccurate (2) "Creation and evolution in public education" is mainly an issue in the US (due to its constitution, large number of conservative evangelical Christians and decentralised/politicised public education system), meaning that an article on the topic that doesn't give the US centre stage would arguably be an unbalanced one (3) at only 50k the article is nowhere near in need of splitting. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being a bit geographically biased here. Pakistan, for example, is the sixth largest countries in the world, it apparently doesn't even allow teaching of evolution in universities (this is all I have been able to gather thus far), which is much more extreme than the United States. Again, Turkey, a country of 70 million, is more fundamentalist about this than the US. Other countries are more extreme still. I have been told by an editor from Saudi Arabia that evolution is not taught at all, and my attempts to get an answer from WikiProject Iran were never answered. The US should certainly not take center stage like you suggest unless we are going to worship systematic bias as our new God. The section on America is disproportionately long, yet it would be destructive to chop it down without having anywhere more specific for it to go. I think even half the article would be way too much to devote to the US, yet it is currently well over that, and a 50kb article is pretty big. If we are to leave it at its current size, we'll have to make the article 100-150kb or more, and summary style should be coming into play long before we get to that size. Richard001 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That indeed sounds like useful information that should be included, if verification can be found. There still may be a case for a larger US section, simply because there appears to be more public debate and complexity to report. .. dave souza, talk 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess that brings us to the important question of what qualifies a country or area to be notable in this article? Is it that they don't follow the scientific consensus? (In which case countries that don't teach evolution at all would be most notable), or is it that it is controversial? (In which case if people are happy to be evolution-deniers, it's no big deal and we shouldn't give it any more attention than we would countries that do teach evolution. Should it be countries that go against the norm (and we would also have to define that...), in which case we would pay more attention to countries that did teach evolution if this were that late 1800s. We have to make that clear before we can really debate how much attention each case should be getting.

Personally, I think something in between how controversial it is and how much it goes against the scientific consensus would probably be the best measure, though of course the availability of reliable sources will be a limiting factor. I also think we need an introduction and history section, by the way. Richard001 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is widespread debate/dissension about evolution being banned in these countries then it isn't really an "issue" & can be conveniently summarised quite briefly (possibly even to a one-entry-per-country table). It is only when such debate/dissension flares up that there is verifiable material for more extensive coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it sounds useful. Keep trying to come up with more reliable sources if you can.--Filll (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As ever, the priority is WP:V, and once we can establish where evolution is rejected, we can review the balance of the article. In terms of the US, the history of creationism is closely bound into rejection of teaching of evolution. The question then arises as to whether evolution has ever been taught in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan etc. and how we can verify the history in those places without original research. Tricky, but worthwhile. .. dave souza, talk 21:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What would be great would be a world map that shows countries that do teach evolution in public schools, those where it is controversial or taught on and off, and those where it is not taught at all. Of course, it also varies within countries, and there's a continuum from a little bit controversial to not taught at all. And it's also very difficult, or at least a lot of work, to do the research required to make such a map.

By the way, don't forget that there is still some info on politics of creationism that needs to be moved here. If anyone is only not working on the article for lack of any sources, moving that here and rewriting the summary there is an option. Richard001 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I think the more you can find, the better. Keep digging! A long term effort is very challenging but will be well worth it. We know that Turkey used to teach it and no longer does. I do not know about other Muslim countries. Of course, it was politically incorrect for a long time in the Soviet Union as well when Lysenkoism was the norm and I am not sure exactly when that changed. Probably the early days of Red China also avoided Darwin because of Lysenko; same with other communist countries I would imagine. --Filll (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Lysenkoism would be an interesting topic. Though Stalin was an atheist, and Lysenko seems to have been a sort of pseudoscientific Lamarckist, so it would be more an issue of the interpretation of evolution being taught rather than creation vs. evolution (though that would be interesting too, since it's a case of political ideology clashing with science).

I guess it might be a little early to think about splitting yet; we really need to get more information on other countries before it will be clear if a split is required. My suggestion of a court case article might be of interest though, as it would mainly be on the US. If people agree the article should not be split please go ahead and take the template down. Richard001 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Category

Hrafn has added this to the court cases category, but this isn't really about court cases. Shouldn't it be left in the higher level categories? If the subject was creationism related court cases it would be good as the main article for the cat, but there's only a little bit here on that topic. Richard001 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the court cases are about 'Creation and evolution in public education', so this would seem to be the appropriate parent article. The fit doesn't have to be perfect. Can you suggest a more appropriate parent? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is the best parent. I'm just unsure if we should include something more general like that in a a more specific category. Categories don't have to have 'main' articles, after all. I would have to check the category guidelines myself; I'm not really sure on this one. Do you think an article like the one I've red linked would be a useful? Richard001 (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think such a new article is needed. All that is needed is an article which gives a unifying (social/political) context to these court cases -- which I think this article does (or should do if its written properly). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Article structure

Structurally, we could actually have the entire content of the article under one common heading: "By country", "By region", or something like that. I suppose everything about the issue has to be associated with one region or another, but I think we could at least have one non-region specific section. Perhaps something like "Background" would be a good way to start the article off, following up after the lead section. It could quickly introduce the reader to evolution, creationism, and the whole debate, and its place in education, directing them to other articles for further reading. We could also have a section analyzing what regions similar in stance have in common, and perhaps something discussing why people think evolution/creationism should or shouldn't be taught in schools. The geographical approach to everything just seems a bit 'one dimensional', and a more diverse approach should make it a better article. Richard001 (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To some extent grouping by faiths would be appropriate in relation to the kinds of creationism, but public education is obviously organised on a geographical basis so that's a logical approach, in terms of regions and countries. Just to cheer up people searching for non-US examples, there's quite a lot about Islamic developments in this article – Taner Edis (January 2008). "The History of Science Society : The Society". Islamic Creationism: A Short History. History of Science Society. pp. Newsletter, Vol. 37, No.1. Retrieved 2008-02-23.. Enjoy, .. dave souza, talk 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorting by religion might be a good alternative. Something to think about in any case. Thanks for the article, will have a read. Richard001 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For the most part either division-system will be equivalent -- North, South America & Europe = Christian, Middle East = Islamic. I think the logical way to handle it is geographically, but ordered in such a way as to keep religions together as much as possible: North America, South America, Europe, Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia for instance (with the latter two having a mixture of Christian, Muslim & other). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds okay. I think we should also have a 'background' section that discusses the views of different religious groups regarding evolution. As for the article, I've finished reading it and used it as a source mainly in the Turkey section, which is now more up to date and no longer relies on one particular source. A pity it didn't mention any other Islamic countries. Richard001 (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey on degree to which Evolution/Creationism/ID taught in highschool

In this post, PZ Myers cites these results of a survey that the Ecological Society of America did on what students were taught in high school. Might be useful for the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Testable Forces?"

Off topic and please don't remove again. Baegis (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
From the Article: "The teaching of religious doctrines, such as Creation Science and Intelligent Design, relies upon an understanding of and belief in the supernatural. This is in direct opposition to the principle that science can only use natural, reproducible, testable forces to explain phenomena. This could lead to the disabling of students' abilities to develop the critical thinking skills necessary for all scientists." What is a testable force in Darwinian Evolution and / or the Big Bang? The time scale is too great for a test, and there are only a few known forces in Nature as described by physics. Do you mean to imply some kind of Evolutionary Force, not known to physics?-50MWdoug (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Go read a text on evolutionary biology, cosmology or particle physics. And please stop asking inane questions. Oh -- and I reverted your other two new sections as being completely off-topic, per WP:TALK. HrafnTalkStalk 18:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC) There was a time in debate when people helped each other, so please see: Stuart_Kauffman#Publications to aid your viewpoint. Kauffman is probably the best at putting forth ideas about a force that is behind complexity. His math and physics are excellent. Prigogine describes the non-equilibrium, irreversible, and open thermodynamic systems that have mass and energy transfer that generate some simple types of order. You might also want to look into Genetic Algorithms, a computational technique that utilizes point mutation, cross-over, and recombination of strings. Evolutionary biology requires solid biophysics, and without a molecular mechanism, one is left with Vitalism. I think it is important for school kids to know that math and physics are the basis of chemistry and biology, whether the topic is evolution or something simpler. We need more editors here so that WP does not look biased. - 18:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukeh (talk • contribs) 50MWdoug (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC) A comment which begins with a quote from the article, and asks a question about it, is not off-topic. NCdave (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, evolution is testable, has been tested, and is confirmed. However, this IS off-topic. This article is about the political conflicts regarding creation and evolution in public education. It is NOT about the testing of evolution by science, and it definitely is not about the "physics of order". --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Source which is inappropriate for this article

From the Verifiability policy: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." "Answers in Genesis" is thus not a Reliable Source and should only be cited in an article about itself, which this is not. Thus the reference to it in this section should be removed. 87.226.84.140 (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I very much disagree; Answers In Genesis makes a concerted effort to cite sources in their articles, many of which are written by persons with doctoral degrees from secular universities. Furthermore I don't agree that AIG is extremist in any way, they present their side but do not advocate denying their opoeants rights or resort to personal attacks. Having a strong opinion on something isn't Extremism. Although you may not agree with their view point that creation is true science you can't hold that as any more extreme than the Smithsonian Institute. In-fact the Smithsonian has been proven a number of times to be displaying exhibits known to be frauds in order to promote their world view, not the least of which is the Lucy exhibit which contains a sculpture based on missing information but also changes the shape of many of the bones found with Lucy to make them "more ape like". If you wish AIG to be removed as a source please provide EVIDENCE that it meets the "Questionable Sources" guidelines. --68.151.173.229 (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)