User talk:Orangemarlin/Evolution-Creation Discussions 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Rough draft of article on creationist organization
Please look at it and give me your comments: User talk:Filll/AllAboutGod--Filll 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Evolution/Gene flow
I've made a start, I have =) Adam Cuerden talk 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Religous Perspectives on Dinosaurs: Kinds disagreement
OrangeMarlin and Rossnixon. I would like the two of your to file a RfC (Request for Comment) over your ongoing mini revert war. [Requests_for_comment] explains what is necessary. This article need work done on it. The revert war is draining scare resources. My guess is that a RfC will lead to a quick resolution. SmithBlue 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely not going to waste my time with this. It's one word, he's violating NPOV, and I'm not going to worry about. Pathetic. Orangemarlin 05:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think I fixed it anyway.--Filll 23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Good to see the two of you communicating - I suggeszt that in future you both limit yourselves to 1 revert and then discuss or request comment. SmithBlue 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Lots of users chat about ideas on each others pages. Sigh. Orangemarlin 08:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Darwin Fish UBX
Hope you don't mind but I came across your evolution support userbox and mercilessly copy and pasted it into my user page. Nice job on it, BTW... KatalavenoTC 15:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mmm.... Intelligent design... don't get me started! Thanks for the response; I'm glad you feel honoured... BTW - if you are like minded, as I am guessing you are, may I suggest a great book if you have not already read it? The Demon-Haunted World Amazing read. KatalavenoTC 17:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Evolution: Controversy WIP
Please comment at Talk:Evolution#Controversy (2) and especially at Talk:Evolution/WIP. Thanks, Gnixon 16:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks for responding. I must say, I'm a little surprised you seem defensive enough of a section you don't like to revert changes! ;-) I hope you'll keep an eye on that subpage and continue to offer your input. Gnixon 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Evolution comment
---
Hi Orangemarlin... I'm not really a Wikipedia'er... I've just taught Evolution in Universities for several years (and used to TA with Steve Gould at Harvard), and so I was just idly trying to improve this article -- which could use a lot of improvement, but that's just my opinion. Since it is clear that there is a lot of bureaucracy/political difficulty making changes to this article (which seems to be watchdogged by people who might not be the best informed to do so?) -- perhaps I ought to not get involved.
However, I will note that there is nothing "creationist" about the term "biological evolution" (to distinguish it from other things that evolve, such as galaxies) -- and furthermore, natural selection *is* a self-evident process in the sense that variation + heritability + superfecundity + survival of only select individuals *necessarily leads to* perpetuation and an increase in the frequency of the heritable traits that were selected.
>>>Finally, it is perfectly acceptable to say "theory of evolution" or "evolutionary theory", in the same way it is acceptable to say "number theory" or "atomic theory". To scientists the word theory does not equal the word hypothesis -- this is why we say Evolution is a theory AND it is a fact, and this is a topic that might be fleshed out a bit.
I also think the adaptationist angle on the Evolution page is a bit extreme. A great deal of evolutionary change has nothing at all to do with "adaptation", strictly defined.
Anyway... I ought not get involved with this, since I don't have a lot of time for the chit-chat, but I am more than willing to help with the article if you'd like. I teach Evolution on a near daily-basis to undergraduate biology majors, and I have for years now. Kind regards, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mandaclair (talk • contribs) 18:47, March 26, 2007.
---
Hi Orangemarlin. Thanks for your comments and help. I hope that anything I may have said or contributed on the Evolution Talk page can be useful to the article. However, as a result of what I view as a somewhat uncalled-for tirade on my UserTalk page by one of the active editors on the article, I have decided to withdraw my participation in this process. It is just too difficult and time-consuming to sort through all of the complicated etiquette, protocol, and much worse now -- drama -- that I now understand why there is not more of a professional presence on Wikipedia. At this point, if you decide you'd like any further help or assistance on the article, feel free to e-mail me directly. Kind regards, Mandaclair 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Neocreationism
The first few edits were because I felt the "abrupt appearance theory" was non-notable and another name for ID. The current edit is because the source which is referenced states, "Subsequently, antievolutionism has evolved into new forms which are characterized by the avoidance of any variant of the "c word"; phrases like "intelligent design theory", or "abrupt appearance theory" are used instead of "creation science", "creationism", and related terms." This has nothing to do about the two views being "most recognized" and the "abrupt appearance theory" is certainly not "most recognized" in the US given there are only 479 ghits for the phrase. Sorry for any confusion. Pbarnes 17:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. So this is just another attempt by the creationists to invent a term so that it confuses the discussion. I'm on board then. I never heard of it, until I was watching this article. Orangemarlin 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- See Talk:Intelligent design movement. Guettarda 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ownership
OM, I've really been getting the feeling that you're reverting my edits because you feel some sense of ownership of the edits you've made. Please humor me and have a look at WP:OWN. Oftentimes, you seem to revert a number of different changes while giving a reason that only applies to one of them. In cases like that, I think you'd do better to change the specific things you disagree with instead of simply reverting everything. Otherwise, it looks like you're just being defensive. Assuming you don't think my edits are gross vandalism, you could at least show me the courtesy of explaining yourself on the talk page. I get the feeling you're just looking at the logs, noticing I changed something you've edited, saying to yourself, "Nah, I liked mine better," then reverting. Wikipedia improves over time because editors continue to make the changes they see fit, assuming good faith of other editors who do the same. You seem more interested in defending the status quo. Gnixon 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your accusations are unfounded. I do not follow anyone, I follow articles. I could care less who edits any article that I'm following, and I certainly don't care whether you do or not. Your lecturing me about what to do either shows your feeling of ownership of these articles, or a certain level of defensiveness that borders on hysteria. Let's talk about Objections to evolution. I didn't like your edits, because they sound like a creationist wrote it. "Many religions accept at least a theistic form of evolution" implies that most do not accept evolution. In fact, a survey of Christian and Jewish religions will show that most accept evolution period, end of sentence. If you cannot understand what I wrote, maybe instead of violating WP:CIVIL with your uncivil comments, you ought to ask me what I meant. For now, I'm reverting your changes in that article, because your description is just plain POV and incorrect. Orangemarlin 13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I hardly think I've been uncivil. My point is that you seem to be so worried about letting Creationist POV into the articles that you end up taking an anti-Creationist POV and resist any attempts to tone down that POV. Please explain to me how "many religions accept at least a theistic form of evolution" implies most do not accept evolution. If 100% of religious people accepted evolution exactly as defined by biologists, my sentence would remain correct. I used "at least theistic" because an older version thought it was important to mention theistic evolution, but I was trying to keep sentences in the intro concise. The version written by you, to which you continue to revert, is both far too bloated for the intro and POVish in going out of its way to marginalize religions that don't accept creationism. Many religions accept evolution. Some don't. Period. Someone wanted to mention theistic evolution because it broadened the class of religions that accept evolution in some way. That seemed to make sense, so I made a concise reference to it. You were apparently so shocked by the pro-Creationism of such a sentiment that you replaced the sentence with a much longer version emphasizing how many religions accept evolution, and you resisted any changes to it. Am I wrong? Gnixon 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I probably jumped the gun in getting on your case. My apologies. I'm very sensitive to not letting these articles become battlegrounds for "creationists" and "evolutionists," so I'm anxious to eliminate POV in either direction. I know you're also concerned about keeping POV out. I would appreciate if you demonstrated good faith in my edits by trying to improve them where possible instead of reverting, which can be inflammatory. If you do feel the need to revert an edit of mine, and assuming it isn't blatant vandalism, maybe you could leave me a message on my talk page or the article's so that we'll have a better place than the "edit summary" to debate changes. Regards, Gnixon 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
I thought I was improving them, and I held nothing towards you but good faith. I liked your edits on objections to Evolution, I just thought that you had inadvertently implied that Judeo-Christian religions only believed in Theistic evolution, which isn't correct. The little box to explain edits doesn't allow for long explanations, especially since I thought that they were self-evident. Sorry about this misunderstanding on both parts. Orangemarlin 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
