Talk:Critical Analysis of Evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
This is a very long introduction. Perhaps it should be shortened and the relevant issues given their own heading? Twipie 05:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why the revert?
FeloniusMonk, I think you should explain quite quickly why you reverted the amendments I made, particularly since you hid your reasons for the reversion with accusations of "reverting significant viewpoint and weasle words". I changed virtually none of the content of the article in my edit, merely the order and structure, so such an accusation is extremely unfriendly!
Since I consider my revisions to be a significant improvement over the original, with it's extremely lengthy introduction and repeated information, I will revert back to my version later today unless you can give me a good reason why not. GDallimore 10:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because a significant viewpoint appeared to be deleted and WP:BOLD#...but don't be reckless. says that at controversial topics discuss substantial changes on talk before making them. After looking more closely I'm not certain that the viewpoint indeed deleted so I've reverted myself and will improve your version. My apologies if I was wrong. FeloniousMonk 07:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- For future reference, don't forget the bit further down that page concerning WP:BOLD#Reverting. On a more constructive note, you mention the removal of a major viewpoint. Looking at the shortened introduction myself a bit more carefully, I think I do see something that is missing and could serve to balance the introduction better. Let me try an edit to improve. GDallimore 09:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bad Link
The Wedge doc link is bad.Pasado 06:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I found a fix, but it's an external reference.Pasado 06:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Subscript text
[edit] New source
Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy June 4, 2008 New York Times. Some highlights:
- Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to "creation science," which became "intelligent design"
- Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are "creationism" or "intelligent design" or even "creator." The words are "strengths and weaknesses."
- Already, legislators in a half-dozen states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina — have tried to require that classrooms be open to "views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory," according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement.
Odd nature (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
