From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Biology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon Evolutionism is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Evolutionary biology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy). If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Creationism / Intelligent design  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Christianity (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Evolutionism:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : Some sections are just drafts at this stage
  • Wikify : Use inline references rather than external links

Breaking the Article[edit]

So, obviously the article has a fundamental problem, since the primary concern of the AfD has not been addressed.

The crux of the issue is that there are two separate issues. There is the legitimate, outdated scientific usage, and the modern slur. So, why don't we split them and label them as such, with sections within each other containing a stub of the other, with a link?

Scientific usage - Evolutionism_(Historical), Evolutionism_(Scientific), or Evolutionism_(Outdated)
Creationist usage - Evolutionism_(Modern), Evolutionism_(Slur), or Evolutionism_(Creationism)

In Evolutionism_(Historical), we focus on the development of Evolutionism, prominent Evolutionists, its decline in official usage, and the modern view of the Scientific Community on the term, with a small stub on how it has been hijacked.

In Evolutionism_(Modern), we focus on the fact that it is used by Creationists out of a misunderstanding of Science, or as an attempt to discredit their opponents, as well as a thorough explanation of the view of both Creationists and Scientists, with specific attention on why it is incorrect, per WP:PSCI. Then, a small stub in there, on the original meaning of the term.

Homo Logica (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We try not to create POV forks, especially since this article is so short. Really, just a couple of editors are trying to change it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be a legitimate fork, since there are two separate applications and meanings, of the term? A POV fork would be if there were two perspectives, and we created an article on each. This is, effectively, two different words. It's definitely too short right now, as you said. When looking for material to expand it, though, I'm having trouble determining what the material is, for which I would be looking.
  • If I expand upon the history of the term, it lends legitimacy to the modern Creationist application, thus making it POV.
  • If I expand upon the Creationist application, it gives undue weight to the Creationist usage, as it denies the legitimate origins of the term, thus making it POV.
I think that putting something like Evolutionism_(Slur) would be POV pushing, which is why I suggested some other ways to do it. My personal preference is Historical and Modern, or potentially Scientific and Modern.
Homo Logica (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there isn't two meanings. There is one meaning that is obsolete and corrupted by creationists. Few, if any, evolutionary biologists refer to themselves as "evolutionists." So to fork it would assume that someone would understand the difference and believe it is actually used. It really isn't. I'm an evolutionary biologist, and frankly, I never heard of "evolutionism" until I was editing something on Wikipedia a few years ago. It's only notable use is pejorative. I'm unconvinced, but others may not be, that this requires two articles. I'm disgusted that there's one, but our only other alternative would be to redirect to Evolution, which would imply evolutionism is evolution. I understand what you're trying to do Homo Logica, but a good encyclopedia shouldn't try to meet the needs of the fringe group. It should, in a neutral manner, show what the fringe side believes, and do the best we can. I think a review of WP:FORK might be useful for both of us. Maybe you're right. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd be even more horrified by a redirect to Evolution, because that would imply that Evolutionism refers to actual Evolution. Essentially, the same point you're making. That its current use is only pejorative. The complicating factor, in my view, is the fact that it actually used to be a legitimate term. Just like you, Wikipedia was my first encounter with it as such. My first thought, upon encountering this article was to put it up for AfD. Then I read the discussion from it. That's where I found out it used to actually have a legitimate usage. What I'm going to do is see if I can find enough information on the historical usage (which should be a pain, because of its current use), and, as you said, review WP:FORK.
Homo Logica (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I meant for us to read WP:CFORK because it's content forking that is of concern. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Under Related Articles it does say: "Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term." which might apply here. Since they are the same terms, but one is in Cultural Anthropology, and the other in, for lack of a better category, Biology, they are distinct topics.
I did a quick search, and I have a bit of material on the Anthropological usage. I'm going to try to get a list of notables, a bit more on the history, and fallout of usage.
Homo Logica (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
There is not sufficient material to warrant splitting this article (by material, I mean encyclopedic text based on reliable secondary sources that could plausibly be added). When proposing a change, please specify why it is needed and what benefits would follow. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Johnuniq has a point -- the article is currently 8k and 10 citations. It'd probably need about double of both to sustain two viable articles. Why don't we see if the article can be built up further, and split when there's enough material on any single subtopic to survive on its own. 08:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The article should NOT be split per WP:CFORK. Take a look at Focal infection theory for an example how to deal with a term that has taken on different meanings over the years.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think that if Homo Logica has some additional reliable sources, we should use it in beefing up this article rather than splitting it per WP:CFORK. I think the people who look up "evolutionism" will need to know what it means both historically and currently, all in one place. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Bulk the article up first. The more content there is, the more obvious the distinction (or lack thereof) is likely to become. Guettarda (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll work on bulking it up, but as I said, my main objection is that it will give WP:UNDUE to the more modern usage. The reason it isn't the same as Focal infection theory is because it isn't an outgrowth of the previous usage or a modification to the pre-existing, legitimate usage. It's a completely separate usage of the word. Thus, it would fall under a different topic, as I indicated above, per Related Articles.
Homo Logica (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Why would expanding the article give more weight to modern usage? Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
If I had the history of the scientific term, and the same article discusses the modern usage, it will make it seem like the history, and actual evolutionists, have something to do with the Creationist's, "evolutionists". Since the history provided would be for the Cultural Anthropology usage which has fallen into disuse, people who visit would be given the impression that it relates to the current usage, which is just a word to describe Evolutionary Biologists. Their history, usage, section of science, definitions, everything... are separate. The only thing that the two uses have in common, is the word itself.
Homo Logica (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. You actually have two problems here.
1) the ideas behind both Creation and Evolution have themselves evolved. To some degree originally started in the 18th century as Neptunism vs Plutonism changing to Catastrophism vs Uniformitarianism in the 19th.
2 The concept (Evolution ie general change) is being purposely confused with a particular method of that concept (ie Darwinian Evolution)
3) Biological scientists no more believe in pure Darwinian evolution then physicists believe in pure Newtonian physics but we teach those to our kids because they are easier to understand.
If you go through Carneiro's book and follow it up with Trigger's you will see that 19th century "Evolutionism" was more a outgrowth of the Imperial Synthesis ideas present than anything out of either the Creationists or scientists--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a little confused. It was originally a derivative outgrowth of Darwin's work, in the 19th Century, to Cultural Anthropology. However, Evolutionism itself, had nothing to do with Evolution. It had to do with a specific progression that all societies followed. Homo Logica (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It is clear you need to go and read both Carneiro and Trigger. "Evolutionism" as a concept predated Darwin by nearly 100 years and applied to biology as well as societies. --BruceGrubb (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm still confused about what exactly you're trying to indicate. Are you saying that Evolutionism, as the Creationists use it, is just a derivative version of Evolutionism, as is used in Cultural Anthropology? Homo Logica (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Have you read Carneiro and Trigger? They explain the history of "Evolutionism" and its relation to evolution reasonably well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct tags[edit]

If a citation contained in an article does not support the material cited to it, then the correct tag is {{failed verification}} NOT {{{Citation needed}}, which should never follow a citation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew about that tag but couldn't find it. The other one was the closest I could find. BigJim707 (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any ideas about how to change the text so it more closely reflects what the sources say? BigJim707 (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  1. The first tagged-ref should simply be eliminated -- leaving it cited solely to Ruse, rather than attempting to reword it to fit both sources.
  2. The second: "The Institute for Creation Research describes 'evolutionism' (along with atheism, pantheism and humanism) as a "false religion" unsupported by science, and describes atheism, humanism, New Age-ism, occultism, liberalism, Marxism and fascism as "evolutionary religions". It proffers a large range of scientific evidence that it states is amenable to a "Creationist Interpretation" as well as to an "Evolutionist" one."
  3. Third: "The argument is that 'evolution' is an 'ism' "because believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one’s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past." "

Incidentally, on closer examination, the appropriate inline tag would have been {{syn}} -- as the problem is that the claims are WP:Synthesis of the cited sources, rather than that the sources outright fail to discuss the subject matter (a reasonably-full listing of inline templates may be found at Category:Inline templates). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I may have just mucked up your efforts here. Because of the conversation below I ended up rereading that entire section, including the sources and I just pulled that verification needed tag you added. Now that I've read this discussion, I'm wondering if I interpreted the sources correctly. Check the edit history and revert me if needed please? I don't edit on these articles often (stuff related to atheism, evolution, science, creationism, etc.) except to watch for blatant vandalism and maybe fix a sentence that comes out choppy periodically. I follow them out of topical interest but I am just a layman (laychick?) so my ability to misinterpret stuff is probably pretty high. Millahnna (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE weight to a tiny minority[edit]

An IP wants to eliminate the WP:Verifiable claim that "to say someone is a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views" because a "tiny minority" (3%) may not "say humans and other living things have evolved over time". But WP:UNDUE states that "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" -- so we are fully justified in ignoring their view. I would further point out to our IP friend that such discussions belong here not on user talk. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, see my contribution below. WP:UNDUE is not applicable in this case, because I do not at all put forward the claim that 3% may not "say humans and other living things have evolved over time". And of course WP:UNDUE cannot be a legitimation to put forward contradictory statements and generalizations that are clearly false.
Note that in fact we have two different sources that contradict. One is a survey that claims that 97% of scientists accepts evolutionary views, the other is a personal opinion that in order to be a scientist, you have to accept evolutionary views.
So the latter is only a WP:Verifiable opinion and not a WP:Verifiable fact. (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Logical inconsistency[edit]

Hi, I'm find myself involved in what seems to become an editwar about a statement that, as I see it, cannot be true. Of course, I have the terrible disadvantage of contributing without being logged in. But to be sure, I'm PhD student, I'm publishing scientific articles in major journals and giving presentations at major scientific conferences - although not in the field of evolution. I'm also a very experienced editor at the Dutch Wikipedia - although I rarely contribute here.

Now, hopefully someone will take me serious. The following two statements that are made in one sentence:

  • the overwhelming majority of scientists accepts evolution (97% according to the reference)
  • to say someone is a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views.

This cannot be both true, right? Either you must accept evolutionary views in order to be qualified as a scientist OR you can be a scientist regardless of what views you wish to accept. (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

See the section just above this. And, yes they can both be correct. The second contains "implies" and yes 97% justifies the statement. Seriously :) Vsmith (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a native English speaker, but just to be sure: the word "implies" points at a necessary consequence, right? [1]. (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Implies points at a probable interpretation. The source we use for this statement phrases things in such a way that, to me at least, this is perfectly clear (search the source for the text we quote in the ref) that there is a little margin there. Millahnna (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so that's the source of confusion, if at least what you say is true (I cannot find it confirmed in the Merriam-Webster link I just gave). In Dutch the same word has a more powerful meaning. (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
See also If you would express probability, I think you would say: to say someone is a scientist implies that one might accept evolutionary views or something like that.
It turns out to be a linguistic detail, but I still feel a bit disturbed about it. Why does one to have accept evolutionary views (or heliocentric views or whatever) in order to be a good scientist in the field of medieval history or Russian culture or nanotechnology or superconductivity or...? Many scientists wouldn't bother to be informed about evolution, let alone to accept it based on evidence. (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Think of it this way; it's not that one has to so much as most do. Millahnna (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, clearly, but what about the word encompass that is actually used in the source? I clearly want to get rid of the suggestion that it is a fact that one has to (although it may be a defendable opinion). (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
You're positing someone having no need to know about evolution because their speciality in science doesn't involve evolution: in that case, they have no expertise on the topic and can only accept the scientific consensus on the matter. They're in no position to contest that consensus in science. Any uninformed rejection of evolution can only be a matter of non-scientific social views or beliefs, in which case they're not acting as scientists in rejecting evolution. It is of course hard to see how acceptance of science is compatible with anti-evolution or indeed with young-Earthist flat Earthism, but there's always a tiny fringe. . dave souza, talk 20:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be OK to me if the article just said something like that, but it doesn't. Tell me, what's the difference:
  • being a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views
  • being a christian implies acceptance of papal infallibility
You see? The article now gives the impression that evolution acceptance is about dogma, not about evidence. (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No logical inconsistency, and yes WP:UNDUE is MOST CERTAINLY applicable[edit]

  1. WP:UNDUE states that "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"
  2. 3% is a tiny minority so can be ignored.
  3. Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time" can therefore be treated as "All scientists say humans and other living things have evolved over time"
  4. Therefore there is no inconsistency, when you take account of Wikipedia policy.

Further point:

  • DO NOT remove WP:Verifiable material from the article without a WP:CONSENSUS, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Doing so is not acceptable practice.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's see how this turns out.
  1. WP:UNDUE states that "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"
  2. 3% is a tiny minority so can be ignored.
  3. "Nearly all people (97%) hate war" can therefore be treated as "All people hate war"
  4. Therefore there is no inconsistency, when you take account of Wikipedia policy, when you say that being human implies that one hates war.
I think that something goes very very wrong in your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. You seem to confuse the opinion of majorities with facts.
The statement would be pretty well supported if it was treated as an opinion. But it is by no means verified as long as it is put forward as a fact. (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The fact is that all but a "tiny minority" accept evolutionary views. You are WP:EDITWARring to give WP:UNDUE weight to this tiny minority, and you are doing so against the WP:CONSENSUS of editors reverting you. STOP NOW! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
No shouting and threatening please. This is not a war, this is an important discussion on the interpretation of Wikipedia policies.
What we actually agree about is that it is a fact that all but a "tiny minority" accept evolutionary views.
We only disagree how accurate we have to represent this fact. You actually claim that in some situations Wikipedia must deliberately represent facts inaccurately because an accurate representation of a fact will put undue weight.
It is not at all my objective to give more weight to creationist views, but think about this: In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. Actually this is such an article. If any article should discuss whether there are scientists that are not evolutionists, it is this article.
Again, this is not what I'm aiming at. But it just supports my view that WP:UNDUE is not applicable here. (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
But it is applicable since we already acknowledge that a tiny minority exists. We quote the source's specific 97% figure in our ref. At most, we could also utilize that figure in the text if it wouldn't be too awkward. But we don't state "all" and "definitely". We say "overwhelming majority", "implies" (which, again, allows for the possibility of a small percentage whose view differs) and then specify the 97% (aka an overwhelming majority but not all) in a quote in the ref. I think you might be interpreting this text wildly differently than we are. I read the related sentence and interpret it to mean "most but not all". That is, in fact, the only logical way to interpret the statement as it stands, since it doesn't muck about with any overly wordy fluff. Millahnna (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  1. I made no threat -- please cease and desist misrepresenting my comments.
  2. Your claim that you are not edit-warring is blatantly contradicted by this article's edit-history.
  3. No I AM NOTYes, I'm shouting -- you misrepresent what I say and I'LL DAMN WELL SHOUT AT YOU! claiming "that in some situations Wikipedia must deliberately represent facts inaccurately because an accurate representation of a fact will put undue weight" -- I am stating that in such situations it gives a more inaccurate impression, due to excessive coverage, to harp on endlessly about a "tiny minority" exception to the wider point. We quite frankly should not spend more than about 3% of the time discussing the 3% who dissent. It warrants only the barest of mentions -- not repeated exception/equivocation/etc of the wider point to make explicit room for them.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

We cite a reliable source stating that "to say a person is a scientist encompasses the fact that he or she is an evolutionist", which the lead cautiously states as "to say someone is a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views". We don't say that there might not be the odd scientist who disputes evolutionary views, we give due weight to the overwhelming majority without giving undue weight to a tiny minority. One correction to Hrafn, there's no evidence of there being "3% who dissent" as the survey only mentions the 97% who said that humans and other living things have evolved over time. The other 3% might have said "don't know". . . dave souza, talk 11:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and I covered that with my "(3%) may not" at the top -- but it gets hard to keep track of making sure that this point propagates into every iteration of the argument. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
@Hrafn: then it turns out that we agree really on a lot of things - at least, if we do some noise reduction.
What you are actually afraid for is excessive coverage and harping on endlessly. If that's the whole point, I don't see why you put so much weight on only a few words extra or less. My last suggestion did affect the length and the content of the article for less than 3%... At this moment I don't exactly understand what you are so excited about, unless I assume that you are leaping into some absurdities as I have suggested above.
What I'm afraid for is putting majority opinions forward as a fact. I surely agree that very minor opinions deserve very minor attention, but they should not be totally hided behind a curtain of false generalizations. Do not always attempt to make the world simpler than it is, that's my philosophy. (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
They aren't hidden. They are stated, upfront, in plain english. Millahnna (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No we don't agree. "Therefore it has been stated that being a scientist..." (i) is very clumsy wording. (ii) Unnecessary, heavy-handed and undue emphasis on equivocation, when the the fact that a tiny minority dissent exists has already been indicated ("overwhelming majority" not unanimity). (iii) The word "implies" is used, allowing for a small degree (i.e.3%) of fuzziness, as opposed to 'compels', 'ensures', etc which would indicate a complete lack of dissent.
Further emphasis on this 3% quite simply is not warranted -- particularly when we don't even know what it is exactly that this 3% believes. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize...[edit]

...for slipping into an editwar (see my user talk page) and for being sometimes a bit harsh during this discussion. I see that the word implies has a weaker connotation than I thought as a non-native speaker. I feel that we can reach consensus without changing much in the article.

But I'm not yet entirely comfortable with the status quo. I still feel an ambiguity when I ponder about the statement being a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views. I see two possible implications of this statement:

  1. scientists that don't accept evolution form a negligible minority - I agree to this (as long as I'm not confronted with evidence on the contrary). But if that's the meaning, it is just double with the statement that an overwhelming majority of scientists accepts evolution. If you have to assume that this statement is not redundant, there must be a second meaning:
  2. in order to be qualified as a scientist, you are required to accept evolution. This is just pigeonholing. We must avoid this implication. (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

  1. in order to be qualified as a scientist, you are required to accept evolution. This is just pigeonholing. We must avoid this implication.
We aren't making this implication. You're reversing the cause and effect in the concepts, I think. It's not a requirement of being a scientist (barring certain disciplines I would assume) that one accepts evolution. It is the result of being a scientist that most accept evolution. This could be because their own research involves that field of study or because, even though their work is not directly related to evolution, they understand the scientific method and peer review process in such a way that they trust the current scientific consensus regarding the issue. That was probably a gross oversimplification on my part. I'm not a scientist by any stretch; just a nerd who reads a fair amount of scientific papers (with my dictionary handy) when I can get my hands on them so the real science geeks can correct my on the fine points. I'm just trying to simplify it in the hopes that you'll see how you're switching the logic backwards. A is not required for B; it's that B leads most to A. I'm totally not helping am I? Millahnna (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)But we go with what the reliable sources say, not what "implications" we draw from it. To do the latter is WP:Synthesis. And speaking for myself, I don't take your #2 as implied by the statement. Rather I would take the implication, in order to think like a scientist, you have to base your conclusions on consistency with empirical data, not religious dogma. This viewpoint would be widely held both by scientists and philosophers of science, and is fully supported by the scientific method. And if somebody doesn't follow the scientific method, it's rather hard to take them seriously as a scientist -- no matter how many pieces of paper they have, or how many letters they have after their name. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, Millahna (and Hrafn), evolution acceptance is often a result of scientific thinking, while rejection often results from religious beliefs. And I want to propose to include that more clearly into the article. Now there is not enough clarity why a scientists is very probably also an "evolutionist". (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to point out that "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" means not to mention specific claims/positions of that certain minority, not to deny their existence or to distort the real coverage of another position, which is what you're basicly doing by transforming "almost all/the overwhelming majority" (<100%) into "all" (100%).

The sentence "to say someone is a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views" is obviously aimed at creationists, as most of the article. If the meaning of the term "imply" is meant to be "generaly involves" then the two disputed sentences really say the same thing, as pointed out, so it is completely redundant and should be deleted, but its true purpose is the more subtle one (not so subtle though) pointed by the same user: "in order to be qualified as a scientist, you are required to accept evolution", for which some users around here will cling on it and won't allow it to be deleted. --ANDROBETA 20:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"widely held 19th-century belief" vs. "widely accepted 19th-century idea"[edit]

With reference to this change, and several other attempts by the same editor to change "widely held 19th-century belief" to "widely accepted 19th-century idea". The former suggests (correctly) that it was believed in the 19th century but is now known to be inaccurate. The latter suggests it is still accepted. That's why it should stay as "widely held 19th-century belief". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that "belief" has the correct connotation on this point. Yobol (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Snalwibma, we already discussed everything that could be discussed about this in the previous discussion. I know that you are only bringing this up because you know that whatever I say there are a bunch of users against me, who will engage in a deplorable attempt of cheap manipulation and will throw a pile of nonsensical comments and impose their numeric superiority, superiority that established the current form of this stupidly written article. So I will not make the mistake of trying to have a reasonable conversation again because I know you are not capable of such a thing, my efforts would be in vain, I would only waste my time.
In this group I'm talking about, I identified two weird types of users that gave the article the aspect of a battlefield with subtle insinuations between two ideologies: frustrated evolutionists and frustrated creationists. The creationists, frustrated because their ideology is tagged as being only a belief, with no real scientific evidence, try to make the concepts of evolution (comprised by the term evolutionism according to any dictionary, as referenced above, and used as such by creationists) seem a belief (with the religious connotation) as well, so they label it as such, along with referencing outdated hypotheses or misinterpreting current scientific data. And of course, in the creationist point of view to be an evolutionist (blasphemous, ignorant) is a very bad ting, so the word has a bad meaning, as is the case for the other side, or for every two hating opponent sides. The evolutionists, frustrated of this, kind of fall in the trap and adopt a fairly ridiculous position, they abnegate the terms evolutionism and evolutionist, and cling to the term evolution supposing that in this way they resolve the problem. So the evolutionists transform the "creationism - evolutionism" controvery into "creationism - evolution" controversy, in response, the creationists adapt it to "creation - evolution" to keep up with the battle.
So in this article, the creationists like the belief definition because it corresponds with their position/raid on evolution(ism), the evolutionists like the belief definition because it supports their abnegation movement. Only that evolutionism is not about this pitiful subject... --ANDROBETA 00:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Androbeta - How dare you pretend to know my motives or beliefs, and how dare you suggest that I am not capable of reason. The funny thing is that in your version, I actually have more of a problem with "accepted" than with "idea". To my ears, "widely held" means that it was once held, while "widely accepted" seems to suggest that it is now accepted. I feel less strongly about belief vs. idea, though I do think the former is better. But, on this specific point, please read and try to understand the opening sentence of the article, and you will see that what you say above is almost wholly irrelevant. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 05:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be clearer to say "refers... specifically to a belief, widely held in the 19th century, that organisms are..." or "refers... specifically to a belief, widely accepted in the 19th century, that organisms are..." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionist not a term used by scientists?[edit]

Hi all,

I agree that in general "evolutionist" is not a term that one hears on the mouth of scientists too often. However, I've heard Richard Dawkins use the term to refer to himself in interviews, (sorry I can't remember exactly where, think it was The Four Horsemen convo, I'll look for the source) also if you check Talk:David Sloan Wilson you'll find a source mentioned where he refers to himself as an evolutionist. I also think I may have heard the term self-referentially on the lips of Steven Pinker. I'll see if I can source this stuff. I only bring it up because it seems that the term may be gaining new traction among scientists in a modern meaning of "a person advocating or espousing evolution by natural selection", bereft of any social-darwinist or derogatory creationist undertones.--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think PZ Meyers may have referenced this concept in passing on his blog a year or two ago (not certain and also not sure we could use such a thing anyway, jumping off point for your research maybe?). Because now that you mention it, Dawkins doing so does ring a bell. This is purely my interpretation based on what you wrote (and thus, in no way usable on the article at all) but I'm wondering if it's possible that this is a reactionary thing. Like some of the scientists who are also "New Atheists" are coopting the term from their critics. If that is the case, and if there are WP:RS covering the concept, it might be an interesting point to include. Again though, this is totally just me speculating. I thought I'd throw it out there for your source search though in case you see something usable that hits the same idea. I'll go back to my lurking and occasional vandal reversion now. Millahnna (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I realize this is an ancient thread but thought I'd mention that I ended up here because someone used the term "evolutionist" and I honestly wasn't certain what they meant without looking it up. I'm a scientist, though not in anthropology or biology; however, I have worked for a biologist who did not believe in evolution even he did not use this term openly. I'd be pretty surprised to hear it outside the context of myth/science debates. TricksterWolf (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This article should be protected.[edit]

It is controversial — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberaccount (talkcontribs) 22:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)