Talk:Icons of Evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I think that using the term "Pseudoscientific" should be removed from this article. I do not come to wikipedia to be told what to think about a topic but to get accurate information about the topic. I think this term should be removed.

Jonathan wells has two earned PhDs from Berkley and Yale. I think it is better to deal with the arguments that he presents instead of just calling this book pseudo science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(i) Wells' first PhD is in Theology (hardly relevant) and his second one was gained with a specific aim of aiding in "destroying Darwinism". Additionally, Wells has never worked as a scientist. (ii) This book, and his arguments contained within, have been unequivocally condemned by the scientific community (see 'Reception by the scientific community and criticism' section). (iii) The deficiencies of his arguments are dealt with in detail in the 'Wells' icons' sections. All this supports calling the book "pseudoscientific" (which is itself specifically cited). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Darwin had a Bachelor Degree in Theology (hardly relevant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that degrees in Biology did not exist in Darwin's time (his work was part of what created the field as a science) it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT that he did not have an advanced degree in the subject (I rather doubt if Isaac Newton had an advanced degree in Physics either). Now please find somewhere else to troll. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
And just to correct our troll, Charles Darwin had an "ordinary" BA, the theology bit is a common misunderstanding. . . dave souza, talk 06:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Biology degrees did exist in the time of Darwin, just Darwin was not interested in science. Darwin was into theology he was not educated in science. Isaac Newton had a mathematics degree. Many of the early biologists had degrees in biology they were educated in science. Darwin was not a biologist or a scientist. Even Jonathan Wells has more science qualifications than Darwin. WebofLife (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
@ WebofLife, biology degrees didn't exist ar Cambridge Uni during Charles Darwin's education, and the rest of your statement is blatantly incorrect as you'll see if you look at the article. Darwin had an excellent education in the science of the day, and was recognised as a scientist by his return from the Beagle voyage. There's more to science qualifications than a little-used phd. . . dave souza, talk 19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I vote omitting the word "pseudoscientific" in that doing otherwise could start edit warring. As well as this, I see no empirical arguments in the article cited that justify the "pseudoscientific" label, and it seems to be a matter of dogmatic ideas, not of sound, scientific reasoning. If one finds an article with reasonable claims that attest to the "pseudoscientific" label, put it in the Wikipedia article, under "Criticism". The Intelligent Design article here on Wikipedia does not use the word "pseudoscientific", also due to neutrality, despite it having had this word in the first sentence previously. The introduction is not intended to be a platform for dogmatic statements. It is supposed to objectively sum up the contents of the article. Wsrh 2009 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Words_to_watch#Contentious labels and Wikipedia:FRINGE/PS Wsrh 2009 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


This article deals mainly with the criticism of its subject, making "Criticism of 'Icons of Evolution'" a more apt title. To make the article more neutral, please focus more on the book itself, rather than its criticism. Also, use sources from both opposing points of view, and not solely the evolutionist one. Wsrh 2009 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:Weight and WP:FRINGE. We have to give more weight to the consensus within the entirety of the scientific community than we do the disparate opinions of creationists in non-academic literature.   — Jess· Δ 16:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I vote for retitling the article so users know they are not getting a NPOV GoodMan23 (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Goodman23

See WP:NPOV], with particular attention to WP:WEIGHT – your idea of a NPOV does not appear to match this policy. . dave souza, talk 20:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the non-neutral POV criticisms. This is clearly written by a cabal of editor dedicated to smearing ID; the same issue is found consistently on every other wiki page relating to ID. This is exceptionally obvious when comparing wiki ID articles to the one on New World Encyclopedia. I cite coverage of ID anytime someone claims wiki is as accurate as other encyclopedias. Let's fix this issue and improve wikipedia. (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This user posted the same to the main ID article. Just to let other editors know, the New World Encyclopedia is a Unification Church run encyclopedia; not neutral by our standards. They specifically criticize "value neutral" encyclopedias and claim to transcend them. Sædontalk 04:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


The first paragraph includes a parenthentical "warning, article biased against Wells--his rebuttals not shown here", which does not seem like an appropriate NPOV commentary. If appropriate, any "rebuttals" should instead be broken out into a separate section and appropriately sourced. Could an established editor please make the necessary revisions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)