Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on evolution and creation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

So the purpose of this article is to endorse the creationist view that evolution is not a science, and that ID is.. good job with that, I'm sure this will stay very NPOV--Bah' 13:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Perhaps I should clarify, the purpose of this wikiproject, as stated is to assert that ID could be considered a science, and that evolution is not a scientific theory? This is absurd--Bah' 13:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Lost a bid for adminship?

How does that apply? Guettarda 14:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, I thought that was odd as well. Many people are turned down adminship for reasons other than POV-pushing. The Land 14:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, then if you sign up are you saying you'd like to welcome non-POV-pushers who were turned down for adminship? I see no objection to that. Uncle Ed 15:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"If you were ever placed on arbcom for NPOV violations " - Very odd, especially since Ed Poor was placed on an RFC, and I don't mean the one I started, does this mean he's prohibiting himself from editing his own creationist wikiproject?--Bah' 14:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean "RFAr" (not RFC), and it didn't have anything to do with neutrality of articles. Also this wikiproject is not creationist. Have you read the list of ideas which it will NOT endorse?
Hmm, perhaps for further clarity we should say that Wikipedia should neither endorse nor reject Creationism.
A lot of things "go without saying" which really need to be made explicit. That a major reason this project is needed. I better stick that in the preamble. Thanks for bringing this to mind. Uncle Ed 15:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "that evolution is a scientific theory"

When you listed "that evolution is a scientific theory" under not intended to endorse or reject, did you mean a "scientific theory" or a scientific "theory"? The two mean different things and your projects purpose should not be vague. A "scientific theory" is "an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested" according to Wikipedia. A standard layman's usage of "theory" is defined as conjecture.

Several dictionaries divide "theory" into two categories:

  • A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
  • Abstract reasoning; speculation.

Perhaps this ambiguity could be alleviated by adding a second entry on your list for:

  • "that evolution is a speculative theory"

That would give both versions of "theory" that have been applied to evolution for inclusion in a list to neither endorse or reject. - Tεxτurε 14:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

While I'm in for two cents let me go for a whole brand new buffalo nickel. The endorse/reject of the creationism entries could also use some work:

  • that creationism is simply silly - Is this an accurate representation of anti-creationism arguments? How about changing this to the real argument: "that creationism is religious extremism" or even "that creationism is religious malarky"? (Not as PC but the kind of feeling that you might have been trying for with "silly".
  • that creationism is unscientific
  • that intelligent design is scientific - Providing creationism and ID in this way is biased. It implies that one side (evolutionists) claims "creationism" as unscientific, with no mention of ID. It further implies that the other side (creationists/ID) claim that ID is scientific, with no mention of creationism.

I would suggest the following replacements:

  • that creationism is religious extremism (or religious malarky)
  • that creationism/intelligent design is unscientific
  • that creationism/intelligent design is scientific

No biased produced by using creationism or ID in the last two and the first I would leave ID out since I think you are trying to refer to creationism specifically since "silly", or "extremism" is usually not applied to ID. - Tεxτurε 15:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And... yes, I know that there is a claim that ID and creationism are separate. However, if you are discussing endorse/reject then you are trying to list prevailing thought and commentary. - Tεxτurε 15:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe you'd better add "that intelligent design is inherently creationist" to the list - Tεxτurε 15:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of scientific theory in terms of "offers valid predictions that can be tested" as you said. Hey, how about signing up for the project? I'm italicizing your name in for now, okay? Uncle Ed 15:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If you want some real NPOV..

I suggest you join mine instead Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_creation_and_evolution--Bah' 16:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Do I have my facts straight? Is Ed a creationist but his project starts with "evolution" and Bah's an evolutionist and his project starts with "creation"? Whew. Confusing. I think I'll probably stick with the one that started first and try to help keep it on the narrow. I have to warn you, Ed. I'm a lapsed catholic who gave up the religion for lent. I haven't decided what I believe but I'm not happy with any established religions' views. - Tεxτurε 16:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, he moved his after mine was created (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject evolution and creation moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on evolution and creation), so technically mine was started first, since his origional project page doesn't exist anymore, as anything other than a redirect--Bah' 16:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, to be honest I have issues with your project's goals:
  • Not "endorse or reject any view, least of all" "that evolutionism is disliked by christian conservatives and must therefore be banned" - I'm pretty sure that one is a fact. There is probably sufficient cites to move that out of the "view" category.
  • "that creationsim is falsifiable" - Isn't that impossible as creationism is defined as a belief? (If this was brought up in discussion or at the trial I'd love to read it.)
  • the "easily verfiable fact" that "there has been a 4 year long politically contrived debate between sceince and religion" - Which is the fact? 4-year long? Been around longer than that, hasn't it? (The recent trials, of course, being shorter in duration.) That it is "politically contrived"? That's clearly POV and a biased phrasing. That it is between "science and religion"? I happen to agree with you on this but it is debatable by those who believe that ID is not strictly religios.
  • "there was another one, but that was about 100 years ago" - The scopes trial? 1925.
  • "The word evolution is often applied to unrelated theories so that they may be dismantled as strawnmen theories" - This is a fact? I can see this as a common argument but as a fact it is vague and tries to conclude intent. (Facts cannot conclude anything. Conclusions would get jealous and start claiming to be facts.)
  • "creationists contend heatedly over which ideas are correct, where as educated people tend to ignore them" - ok, now I get it. The project is a joke, right? "educated people tend to ignore" "which ideas are correct"? Is this a grammatical error or a thought lost in itself?
  • This last one is fun:
    • "A statistically signifigant number of people with a primary school education or under" - just what is that number? Who's included? Where was it published?
    • "those in favor of creationism will continue to advocate the removal of science from classrooms" - wow, facts can predict the future now?
    • "until a suitable curriculum can be created that can encompass the christian belief system, and calls scientists a bunch of stupid nerds" - Well, personally I think the facts clearly indicate that scientists are a bunch of intelligent nerds.
I'm sorry, what was the project's goal again? I seemed to have lost it in the details. - Tεxτurε 16:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oh dear...

I have some serious misgivings about this project, but let me discard my usual practice of including several paragraphs of quantification and apologies-in-advance and just throw my thoughts out there:

  • I agree wholeheartedly with the letter of this project... it is the spirit which I regard with some wariness.
  • The POV problem on these issues is one of two ends with no middle
    • The science-minded tend to trample controversy with current scientific majority, peer-review, etc. as a defense against the constant attempts to marginalize the hard-science, academic issues on WP. Additionally, there is the difficulty that, as they see the world, and the conflict, they've already won. They regard further argument of the type occuring as outside science, invalid, and an attempt to change the rules.
    • Others (I can't come up with an NPOV term here...) will force weasel words, qualifiers and controversy into every scientific article that even implies finality to avoid a perception that current controversies have been resolved, or are simply non-existent. Their fault, in terms of NPOV, is that they have an outcome already decided, and will use any method available to reach it.

I've worked on a similar article in the past, and it gave me no end of frustration. Ed, I think you know the article, and I sense a similarity. The problem I faced, and I believe it will occur again here, is that we have two groups essentially fighting for the soul (figuratively.... let's not go there) of a mostly fictional, perfectly ignorant reader, and if their ability to battle each other on an open field is restricted, they will simply migrate the conflict to ever-increasing levels of minutia. That's where I fell on my sword previously, I could not maintain the level of expertise necessary to NPOV increasingly complex issues; the WP page in that case was at the bleeding edge of commentary and research of the topic, to its detriment. I would like to see this projects work progress, I despair of its ability to do so. Fox1 16:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that's more or less the spirit of my thoughts on the matter, which I'd been unable to sum up. I might also point out that the evolution vs. creation debate is much bigger in the USA than it is in the rest of the world. The Land 16:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for reminding me, I had to do some work in the midst of writing my post and forgot to bring up the regional importance of the issue. I've seen quite a few editors complain that U.S. centered controversy is weighing unduly on articles that should really be international in scope: neither "science" nor "religion" are inventions of the estadounidenses ("United Statesians" sounds stupid in english).
Fox1 16:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Makes the abortion controversy seem tame, by contrast. --Uncle Ed 19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_on_evolution_and_creation_ba1f.html"