Talk:Of Pandas and People
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Significance of title
Why is the book called this? (unsigned comment by User:Starwed 18:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC))
- Look in the external links at "The Panda's Thumb," an article which explains the significance of panda evolution in the debate. Jokestress 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dispute tag
I removed a dispute tag that had no substantiation on this talk page. If someone has a real dispute, they should feel free to reinstate the tag and open discussion here. JHCC (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Watered down"
I have edited the use of the phrase "watered down" in reference to the Kansas incident. I replaced it with something like "modified curriculum with regard to evolutionary theory".
[edit] Links Section
It seems like the External Links section is a bit biased towards one side. Perhaps somebody could add more pro-ID links and/or remove some anti-ID links for the sake of balance? Fightindaman 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- If you can find any relevant creationist links, add them (and by relevant I mean about the book itself, we have a separate Kitzmiller v. Dover page). Do not remove any relevant links just to make something "balanced", that is under the false assumption that all POVs have equal validity, and which is not in line with WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. — Dunc|☺ 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The external links section is really biased. For one thing, it does not label the opposing group as Pro-Evolution/Darwinism, but "Pro Science". They have already labeled one 'Science' on the spot. There are quite a few ID sites conspicuously absent from the pro-Intelligent design links.165.123.133.216 01:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Rebekah
[edit] Overview
I'm kind of disappointed. I expected more from the Overview section. I'm writing a paper contrasting 19th century objections to Darwinism with modern-day objections, but I can't even figure out what the main objections in Pandas are. Perhaps someone here would sacrifice (and I do mean sacrifice) their time and read the book? Report back on what it says? Thanks! --aciel 19:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is plenty of material available on the internet. You'd probably be better off looking at Darwin's Black Box, Meyer's review "paper" in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington as examples of primary antievolutionist literature. There is a lot of material at the talk.origins Archive. — Dunc|☺ 08:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. Still, the suggestion stands. =) --aciel 02:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pseudoscience
Someone wrote,
Pseudoscience or non-science? I know it's something that isn't science dressed up as science, but doesn't pseudoscience already have a definition that is inconsistent with what Intelligent Design is? From what I remember, pseudoscience is somewhat scientific, but inappropriately done; Pandas and People is NOT scientific.
Read the pseudoscience article to better understand it. Mr Christopher 16:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
