Talk:Creation and evolution in public education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in politics of creationism.
This article is within the scope of following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Creation and evolution in public education: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Cleanup:
    • Move all references into references section.
    • Expand:
    • Discuss countries not currently mentioned, such as strongly religious countries.
      • Pakistan (more sources/details needed)
      • Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and others
    • Discuss the abscence of an article creation and evolution in education. Is non-public education not worth mentioning? Should a new article be created? Or should this one be moved and broadened a little?
    • Should we have some other sections rather than just a 'by region' approach to everything?
    • Other:
    • Discuss what qualifies a case/region to be in this article? Are we focusing on controversy, distance from scientific consensus, or what?
    • Discuss splitting some of the United States section off into a daughter article (see Talk:Creation and evolution in public education#Split discussion
    • Unique material is available in politics of creationism, which shouldn't be the case. This should be moved here and the summary there improved (made more concise).
Priority 3  
This is not a forum for general discussion of Creation and evolution in public education.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Worldwide View

I think this tag should be removed. Since religion in schools is centered almost exclusively in Bible-belt in America and the mid-east. What are some other thoughts on this?Reinoe (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not like these sorts of tags. To describe it everywhere in the world is a daunting task. We do however, have a lot about the US and Europe. We could do with a bit more description of it in the Muslim world if we can get good sources. Some for Turkey should be available.--Filll (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that we don't describe the Middle East at all, and dedicate most of the article to the US, I think this is a pretty poor argument. But wait, it's a lot of work! Let's just remove the tag! (Joking). See 'U.S.-centric' section above. Richard001 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
While it may be a significant issue in the Middle East, I would suspect that we have very little in the way of WP:RSs about there. Because in Europe teaching Creationism in public schools is neither unconstitutional, nor is there such a large, organised, vocal constituency pressing for it, receives considerably less coverage than the US. Any imbalance would therefore seem to be a natural result of WP:V. HrafnTalkStalk 01:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. There are sources, some of which I have found myself. However, because they are from other countries, often not even speaking English, it will be a bit harder to research. Still, this is no excuse for having a US/Eurocentric article, especially when the case in some of these countries is just as bad as, if not worse, than in the US. Richard001 (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok Richard001. Here is a novel idea. Why don't you take all those hundreds of verifiable reliable sources you have found for the status of creationism in public education in the Middle East, in Asia, in East Asia and South Asia, in South America, in Europe and so on, and write a nice article about it? You can start in a sandbox if you like. I think that would be a nice contribution. Thank you for offering.--Filll (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly under no obligation to write the article, and I think it's really up to you to at least search for some sources before you tell me there aren't any (though you may have, for all I know). I have little doubt there are such sources, such as the one on Turkey I've provided on the to do list above (I presume, after all, that most countries have some sort of press and media, and written laws). If someone wants to add a section on Turkey to the article detailing the information available in that article I'll be happy to look for more sources, and will accept removal of the globalize tag if I can't provide any. Richard001 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Richard001, if you can show the sources here for discussion, or start new sections, even a little information would be a great improvement provided the sources are good. One thought – there are vocal creationists in Australia and New Zealand, have they succeeded in getting a foothold in schools? ... dave souza, talk 15:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I am skeptical as to whether "there are vocal creationists in Australia and New Zealand" that are vocal/prominent in those countries, as opposed to acting as exporters of creationist materials for the US market. There just isn't sufficient appetite nor newsworthiness in those countries for home-grown creationism. HrafnTalkStalk 15:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There are certainly creationists in Aust. and NZ, but they would be too small a minority to have any political power. I've never even heard of a case of anti-evolution education in NZ, though a poll I read shows there are a small minority who share the same sentiments as those in the US and elsewhere. I don't think something of such a small scale would be worth mentioning in the article though, except perhaps to say that there are small minorities elsewhere, but that they don't have much political clout. Richard001 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course Richard001 you are under no obligation to do anything. My point is, you seem to think you have access to many references, including some that are not in English that address this topic. That is great.

But, I have encountered now literally hundreds or even thousands of people who come to Wikipedia to complain about how the articles are written. Fair enough; I will admit that at least 99% of the articles that I see when I choose one at random are complete pieces of trash. They have bad English, bad references, uneven citation formats, dead links, are incomplete etc. So there is no shortage of work to do.

However, it would be nice if some of those who are fond of pointing out the shortcomings of the articles would take up the challenge and help us do some writing. When they say that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can write", they mean exactly that. And when you come to volunteer someone else's unpaid time to a task, they might not be as enthusiastic as you are to perform the task. So since you see the task as important and you have the means to correct it, WP:So fix it. Thanks. --Filll (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no Filll, I don't have time to, and I already do much editing as it is. In case you haven't noticed, I already am a contributor to Wikipedia - among the top 1500 or so. I edit a small number of pages and comment on a larger number. If I fixed every issue I pointed out I would have to spend all my time editing Wikipedia, and do so extraordinarily fast. That doesn't mean that people pointing out problems and not fixing them is a bad thing - it's quite constructive. Still, it's not that big a task is it? How about you fix it?
I've never said I have access to lots of articles, by the way. I'm simply saying it seems implausible that suitable sources do not exist. Richard001 (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Oh how nice, a snide remark and an attack. Well let's take a look at your claims, shall we? You have been here 9 months longer than I have. Yet, I have in excess of 4000 more mainspace edits than you, and in excess of 11000 more total edits than you.

You have position 1439 on the contribution list, and that is great. But I am at position 483. I have written plenty of articles and continue to do so. So I do not need to hear this kind of stuff from you. Either fix this article, or not; I don't care. But do not attack me because I think I am doing a bit here as well, you know? In fact, you only make 2.28 edits per page, and I make almost 10 edits per page, so I am not flitting from page to page dropping bombs and doing drive-by criticism. I actually roll up my sleeves and actually do something here. So please, I do not want to hear more of this kind of criticism from you; if you do not want to help, fine, thanks for your kind words. --Filll (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to have an edit-count war with you. My point is that giving me the 'so fix it' crap is annoying. And again, you're making things up. What attack? Richard001 (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you purport not to be here to write an article for the encyclopedia or to share your copious references you have found or to have an "edit-count war" with me. So what, pray tell, are you here for exactly?--Filll (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously to counter your misinformation, my friend. Could you point out where I say "copious references", or would you prefer to simply admit half of your replies are simply nonsense? Perhaps you would like to reply with a logical fallacy of some sort. Can I interest you in an ad hominem tu quoque? Oh, I see you've used that one already... Richard001 (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you have made your purpose here clear. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious why I'm here; because I watch this page, and someone has brought up an issue, and I've replied to it. Now if anything more is to be said, let's keep it on topic. Richard001 (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


If you have something of value to contribute, go ahead. If not, that is fine too. Otherwise...--Filll (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Right... Anyway, I've added a section on Turkey based on the article I mentioned. Since this is only based on one reference, more research is needed for this section. As for other countries, I definitely don't have time to do any further research right now. You may take the globalize tag down if you wish; I'll try to find sources for more hard-line countries at some point in the future. Any comments on the last point in the to-do list are welcome. Richard001 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that about taking it down. The more I look into it the more clear it is that this article is woefully underdeveloped. There is no mention of Latin America or Africa, which are both being swept by fundamentalist Christianity, and no mention of Middle Eastern countries much more conservative than Turkey. I think the material on the United States should also have its own article, as it's given too much weight here. It would be wasteful just to trim it down instead, and as a separate article it could certainly be expanded, perhaps to be a little broader in scope as well (e.g. mentioning non-public institutions)? Richard001 (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards to verifiability, there probably won't be much we can find (or at least read) for certain countries, but their governments will surely have laws about what is supposed to be taught and not taught in public schools, so that's what we really need to go after. Richard001 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split discussion

Re: "It has been suggested that some content from this article be split into a separate article entitled Creation and evolution in United States education."

  • Oppose: (1) the issue is only notable in the US in public education, meaning that the name of the proposed new article is inaccurate (2) "Creation and evolution in public education" is mainly an issue in the US (due to its constitution, large number of conservative evangelical Christians and decentralised/politicised public education system), meaning that an article on the topic that doesn't give the US centre stage would arguably be an unbalanced one (3) at only 50k the article is nowhere near in need of splitting. HrafnTalkStalk 10:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you are being a bit geographically biased here. Pakistan, for example, is the sixth largest countries in the world, it apparently doesn't even allow teaching of evolution in universities (this is all I have been able to gather thus far), which is much more extreme than the United States. Again, Turkey, a country of 70 million, is more fundamentalist about this than the US. Other countries are more extreme still. I have been told by an editor from Saudi Arabia that evolution is not taught at all, and my attempts to get an answer from WikiProject Iran were never answered. The US should certainly not take center stage like you suggest unless we are going to worship systematic bias as our new God. The section on America is disproportionately long, yet it would be destructive to chop it down without having anywhere more specific for it to go. I think even half the article would be way too much to devote to the US, yet it is currently well over that, and a 50kb article is pretty big. If we are to leave it at its current size, we'll have to make the article 100-150kb or more, and summary style should be coming into play long before we get to that size. Richard001 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That indeed sounds like useful information that should be included, if verification can be found. There still may be a case for a larger US section, simply because there appears to be more public debate and complexity to report. .. dave souza, talk 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess that brings us to the important question of what qualifies a country or area to be notable in this article? Is it that they don't follow the scientific consensus? (In which case countries that don't teach evolution at all would be most notable), or is it that it is controversial? (In which case if people are happy to be evolution-deniers, it's no big deal and we shouldn't give it any more attention than we would countries that do teach evolution. Should it be countries that go against the norm (and we would also have to define that...), in which case we would pay more attention to countries that did teach evolution if this were that late 1800s. We have to make that clear before we can really debate how much attention each case should be getting.
Personally, I think something in between how controversial it is and how much it goes against the scientific consensus would probably be the best measure, though of course the availability of reliable sources will be a limiting factor. I also think we need an introduction and history section, by the way. Richard001 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless there is widespread debate/dissension about evolution being banned in these countries then it isn't really an "issue" & can be conveniently summarised quite briefly (possibly even to a one-entry-per-country table). It is only when such debate/dissension flares up that there is verifiable material for more extensive coverage. HrafnTalkStalk 07:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it sounds useful. Keep trying to come up with more reliable sources if you can.--Filll (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As ever, the priority is WP:V, and once we can establish where evolution is rejected, we can review the balance of the article. In terms of the US, the history of creationism is closely bound into rejection of teaching of evolution. The question then arises as to whether evolution has ever been taught in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan etc. and how we can verify the history in those places without original research. Tricky, but worthwhile. .. dave souza, talk 21:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What would be great would be a world map that shows countries that do teach evolution in public schools, those where it is controversial or taught on and off, and those where it is not taught at all. Of course, it also varies within countries, and there's a continuum from a little bit controversial to not taught at all. And it's also very difficult, or at least a lot of work, to do the research required to make such a map.
By the way, don't forget that there is still some info on politics of creationism that needs to be moved here. If anyone is only not working on the article for lack of any sources, moving that here and rewriting the summary there is an option. Richard001 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Well I think the more you can find, the better. Keep digging! A long term effort is very challenging but will be well worth it. We know that Turkey used to teach it and no longer does. I do not know about other Muslim countries. Of course, it was politically incorrect for a long time in the Soviet Union as well when Lysenkoism was the norm and I am not sure exactly when that changed. Probably the early days of Red China also avoided Darwin because of Lysenko; same with other communist countries I would imagine. --Filll (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Lysenkoism would be an interesting topic. Though Stalin was an atheist, and Lysenko seems to have been a sort of pseudoscientific Lamarckist, so it would be more an issue of the interpretation of evolution being taught rather than creation vs. evolution (though that would be interesting too, since it's a case of political ideology clashing with science).
I guess it might be a little early to think about splitting yet; we really need to get more information on other countries before it will be clear if a split is required. My suggestion of a court case article might be of interest though, as it would mainly be on the US. If people agree the article should not be split please go ahead and take the template down. Richard001 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Hrafn has added this to the court cases category, but this isn't really about court cases. Shouldn't it be left in the higher level categories? If the subject was creationism related court cases it would be good as the main article for the cat, but there's only a little bit here on that topic. Richard001 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the court cases are about 'Creation and evolution in public education', so this would seem to be the appropriate parent article. The fit doesn't have to be perfect. Can you suggest a more appropriate parent? HrafnTalkStalk 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is the best parent. I'm just unsure if we should include something more general like that in a a more specific category. Categories don't have to have 'main' articles, after all. I would have to check the category guidelines myself; I'm not really sure on this one. Do you think an article like the one I've red linked would be a useful? Richard001 (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think such a new article is needed. All that is needed is an article which gives a unifying (social/political) context to these court cases -- which I think this article does (or should do if its written properly). HrafnTalkStalk 07:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

Structurally, we could actually have the entire content of the article under one common heading: "By country", "By region", or something like that. I suppose everything about the issue has to be associated with one region or another, but I think we could at least have one non-region specific section. Perhaps something like "Background" would be a good way to start the article off, following up after the lead section. It could quickly introduce the reader to evolution, creationism, and the whole debate, and its place in education, directing them to other articles for further reading. We could also have a section analyzing what regions similar in stance have in common, and perhaps something discussing why people think evolution/creationism should or shouldn't be taught in schools. The geographical approach to everything just seems a bit 'one dimensional', and a more diverse approach should make it a better article. Richard001 (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

To some extent grouping by faiths would be appropriate in relation to the kinds of creationism, but public education is obviously organised on a geographical basis so that's a logical approach, in terms of regions and countries. Just to cheer up people searching for non-US examples, there's quite a lot about Islamic developments in this article – Taner Edis (January 2008). The History of Science Society : The Society. Islamic Creationism: A Short History Newsletter, Vol. 37, No.1. History of Science Society. Retrieved on 2008-02-23.. Enjoy, .. dave souza, talk 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorting by religion might be a good alternative. Something to think about in any case. Thanks for the article, will have a read. Richard001 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
For the most part either division-system will be equivalent -- North, South America & Europe = Christian, Middle East = Islamic. I think the logical way to handle it is geographically, but ordered in such a way as to keep religions together as much as possible: North America, South America, Europe, Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia for instance (with the latter two having a mixture of Christian, Muslim & other). HrafnTalkStalk 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds okay. I think we should also have a 'background' section that discusses the views of different religious groups regarding evolution. As for the article, I've finished reading it and used it as a source mainly in the Turkey section, which is now more up to date and no longer relies on one particular source. A pity it didn't mention any other Islamic countries. Richard001 (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey on degree to which Evolution/Creationism/ID taught in highschool

In this post, PZ Myers cites these results of a survey that the Ecological Society of America did on what students were taught in high school. Might be useful for the article. HrafnTalkStalk 09:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Testable Forces?"

[Off topic discussion removed to User talk:Nukeh per WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" HrafnTalkStalk 13:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC) ]

[edit] Source which is inappropriate for this article

From the Verifiability policy: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." "Answers in Genesis" is thus not a Reliable Source and should only be cited in an article about itself, which this is not. Thus the reference to it in this section should be removed. 87.226.84.140 (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK.--Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I very much disagree; Answers In Genesis makes a concerted effort to cite sources in their articles, many of which are written by persons with doctoral degrees from secular universities and have found them to be curtious and professional at all times.

Also AIG is being cited as a source about an AIG point of view, thusly the Questionable Sources policy does not apply.

Furthermore I don't agree that AIG is extremist in any way, they present their view point but do not advocate denying their detractors their rights or resort to personal attacks. Having a strong opinion on something isn't extremism.

Although you may not agree with their view point that creation is true science you can't hold that as any more extreme than the Smithsonian Institute promoting Evolution.--68.151.173.229 (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

AiG is undoubtedly "extremist". This has nothing to do with "denying others their rights", it's more to do with their reliability as a source. Their view requires the rejection of vast quantities of scientific evidence, and the idealistic promotion of falsehoods such as "no transitional fossils" (there are billions) or "mutations cannot create information" (they can and they do). As a result, they should never be used as citations for statements of fact (and comparisons with the Smithsonian are absurd) However, they CAN be used as a source of information regarding what creationists believe: and as they appear to be THE most notable YEC organization, they are arguably the best reference available for that purpose. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This and more has been explained to the proxy-hopping user at Talk:Young Earth creationism. I suggest that any attempts to edit the article by tor nodes should be summarily reverted, and that we should consider this user topic-banned. silly rabbit (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. HrafnTalkStalk 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
What? Who is "tor nodes?" I'm confused. NCdave (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As for AiG, I am convinced that they are very wrong about the age of the universe, but they certainly are not "extremists." Consult a dictionary for proof: An extremist is "one who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics."[1] People who try to stifle scientific debate are extremists, environmentalists who blow up whaling vessels are extremists, but the AiG folks don't do anything resembling extremism. NCdave (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NASA scientists prhibited from mentioning the age of the solar system?

The article says:

“ Political appointees to NASA prohibit its scientists from mentioning the age of the solar system, galaxy or universe. Because Global Warming is based on evidence that could be tens, or hundreds, of thousands of years old, many scientists employed by the US Government are prevented from discussing their theories publicly.[37] ”

That appears to be wholly fictional, and the article referenced in the footnote says nothing to support it.

Can we all agree that this untrue statement should be deleted?

And how did such nonsense get into the article?? NCdave (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the source, I'd say the statement above goes well beyond a reasonable interpretation of the NY Times article. A more appropriate source should be found or the statement trashed. — Scientizzle 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd favour trashing it -- it appears to be far more relevant to Politicization of science than to Creation and evolution in public education. HrafnTalkStalk 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Gone. — Scientizzle 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. NCdave (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be fallacious, however, I have it on good authority that the guides at the Grand Canyon as well as the brochures and books available in the book shop down play or avoid mentioning anything about the age of the Grand Canyon.--Filll (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've heard stuff to that effect, too...If there's a source that discusses something like that, it could possibly replace the NASA paragraph. — Scientizzle 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we have to be careful here in making sure that this is relevant to 'public education'. I'm interpreting this as 'education in public schools' (which "brochures and books available in the book shop" are irrelevant to). If it in fact should be taken to mean 'anything conceivably to do with educating the public', then please correct me. HrafnTalkStalk 07:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Answering my own question (how did this get into the article?)...
The claim about NASA scientists being prohibited from mentioning the age of the solar system was added, along with the "testable forces" claim (discussed above), in this editorial inserted into the article 16 months ago by OrangeMarlin, which also: called ID "pseudoscience," called Creation Science & Intelligent Design "religious myths," and even asserted that learning about such things could disable students' abilities to learn critical thinking skills, all of which are untrue. NCdave (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The NASA passage has already been removed as irrelevant. The article currently describes Creation Science & Intelligent Design as "religious doctrines" and the latter as pseudoscience all of which is well-established (both academically and jurisprudentially). HrafnTalkStalk 04:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, much of that severely POV-biased material remains in the article. For instance, this is the version of the "testable forces" paragraph that OrangeMarlin inserted:
  • The teaching of Creation Science, Intelligent Design and other similar religious myths rely upon the understanding and belief in supernatural phenomena which is direct opposition to the principle that phenomena can be explained only by natural, reproducible, testable forces, that is, science. This could lead to the disabling of our students' abilities to develop the critical thinking skills necessary for all scientists.
And this is the current version:
  • The teaching of religious doctrines, such as Creation Science and Intelligent Design, relies upon an understanding of and belief in the supernatural. This is in direct opposition to the principle that science can only use natural, reproducible, testable forces to explain phenomena. This could lead to the disabling of students' abilities to develop the critical thinking skills necessary for all scientists.
As you can see, "religious myths" has been changed to the less insulting but equally inaccurate "religious doctrines," but other than that the paragraph is nearly the same. The nonsensical "testable forces" terminology is still there, as is the absurd and completely unsourced claim that learning about ID or creationism could disable students' very ability to learn to think critically. I propose that we simply delete the whole thing. NCdave (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Both Creation Science & ID are religious doctrines -- the former arising from Genesis, the latter (in the words of William Dembski from "the Logos theology of John’s Gospel". That they do not rely on testable forces (and mechanisms and hypotheses based on such) is well-substantiated. That such indoctrination could impair critical thinking is unsourced, but hardly "absurd". HrafnTalkStalk 05:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
ID does not even slightly resemble the definition of "religious doctrine," and calling "learning about ID or creationism" "indoctrination," or suggesting that it impairs the ability to develop critical thinking skills, is POV in the extreme.
Please cite the substantiation that you claim for ID not relying on "testable forces" (whatever that means), or even for other sciences, such as biology & medicine, relying on "testable forces." That term is not one that I've encountered in any scientific discipline.
Note that the scientific method does not rely on the testability of forces, it relies on the testability & falsifiability of predictions which can be deduced from hypotheses. For example, in the 19th century Darwin hypothesized that species had developed through "gradual evolution." That hypothesis implied a prediction about what the fossil record would show. But the fossil record eventually revealed that the appearance of new and different species was sudden rather than gradual, which falsified the prediction. Consequently, almost nobody in science believes that Darwinian phyletic gradualism is correct. That's why punctuated equilibrium has replaced Darwinian gradualism as the dominant macroevolutionary theory. But neither theory relied on the testability of "forces."
Like the rest of this editorial, this sort of thing obviously does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Is there any objection to just deleting the paragraph? NCdave (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The Kitzmiller ruling seems to go against your original research. And, obviously you require some science courses instead of relying upon your faith stuff. ID is religion, pure and simple. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

www.rhymezone.com "does not come even slightly resemble" a WP:RS. Nothing else you said was substantiated, so I'm not going to bother responding to it (particularly as it is mostly about an edit that was made over a year ago, plus a totally irrelevant and fallacious rant about a strawman version of evolutionary theory). When you actually have something to say that is relevant to the article as it stands today and is reliably sourced, I may respond. HrafnTalkStalk 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But God made everything -- who made him is irrelevant. Atheogenesis is cool. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop deleting talk page discussions

[edit] WP:FORUM

I draw NCDave's an Nukeh's attention to the template at the top of this talkpage:

This is not a forum for general discussion of Creation and evolution in public education.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

HrafnTalkStalk 11:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)