Talk:Epic of Evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This sounds like an advertisement for something. Drunkonbananas 08:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article but I'm still not sure what this is supposed to be about. Is this a religious idea? A scientific one? A book, even? Some clarification would be appreciated. --Todeswalzer|Talk 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As the original author of this article, my intent is to write about the newly emerging Epic, which is similar to Epics like the Epic of Gilgamesh, except that this Epic is verified by the thousands of scientists who contribute to it. Unlike the discipline of biological evolution which only addresses biology, the Epic of Evolution tells the entire story of our universe, from the Big Bang (Great radiance if you prefer) to the emergence of life to the emergence of culture to now. Unlike other Epic stories, this story will always be changing as science reveals new insights about how we came to be. This is a scientific idea. But it's meant to be understood by people of all religions, of all philosophies and of all cultures. It's not just for scientists or science geeks. Momosean 21:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so now I understand the point being made by the phrase "Epic of Evolution". However, this sounds an awful lot like original research, as opposed to the Point-of-View concern outlined by Drunkonbananas. Without any authoritative "Epic" having been written (how I understand this material), as is the case of Gilgamesh, etc., this may be problematic for an article in an encyclopaedia.

What should be stated at the very beginning of the article is where the phrase "Epic of Evolution" comes from and whose idea it is. If, on the other hand, this is a synthesis of the ideas of several different people working independently of each other, then it shouldn't be posted on Wikipedia, which works to summarize existing knowledge and ideas. I'll keep an eye on this page for the next little while and help out wherever needed; or, if you want, you can leave me a message on my talk page if you have any other questions/concerns/etc. --Todeswalzer|Talk 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This article contains no original research, but rather summarizes the work of many people working on the Epic of Evolution. In accordance with the mission of Wikipedia, this article is a summary of existing knowledge and ideas of many people working in the area. Momosean 14:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You've done a good job clarifying the introduction as far as my previous concerns are, well, concerned. But I have just one more: Why the separate article on the "Epic of Evolution" if the idea is also known as "The Great Story"? Generally, articles dealing with the same subject matter are merged so that similar or identical material can be found in one place. The rationale for your decision to create a separate article should be spelled out clearly, both in the article (in the form of a "What distinguishes this idea from that one") and on this talk page so someone else doesn't come along and simply merge the two articles. Other than that, good work so far. --Todeswalzer|Talk 18:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What distinguishes the Epic of Evolution from The Great Story? One subtle difference is that the Epic of Evolution does not necessarily promote a new religious movement (as The Great Story Wikipedia article suggests), but instead promotes the meaningful understanding of the evolution for people of all religions and philosophies. Momosean 21:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with drunkonbananas, this is a problematic article, nothing like neutral and lacking reliable sources. Most of the extlinks seem to be from sites promoting the philosophy. The Great Story looks to have the same problem. I would say these are both vanity pages or borderline vanity pages. At minimum, a lot of cleanup is needed to bring them closer to neutrality. 67.117.130.181 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed the concern about original research. This idea is original in the way that Darwin's idea of evolution by natural selection is origial, yet this idea even precede's Darwin. The Epic of Evolution summarizes the an idea held by perhaps millions of people from all ages. I rearranged the article to show right up front that this concept is embraced by many people from around the world and from different times. Momosean 17:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that no one has yet critiqued the article "Big History" as a vanity piece, when it refers to basically a single work of scholarship by that name. But then some here critique this piece for referring to (synthesizing) multiple works. So it appears one is damned if one does, and damned if one doesn't. It seems clear to me that there is an important place in Wikipedia for an article on the epic of creation (is "evolution" the problem term here?) as told by scientists and historians, distinct from other articles summarizing religion, faith-based, or otherwise anecdotal accounts of creation. --TomEM 17:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reposting of Epic of Evolution

I have reposted this article. This is because it was first disputed, then turned into a tiny, misleading stub and then redirected to The Great Story. No mention of this was done was made on the talk pages. I reiterate some of my responses to critiques of this article: This article is not a presentation of original research since this article restates information from all kinds of published books, general knowledge, journals and web sites. As for critique that this is a vanity article, this is not true because this article does not glorify a single person or a philosophy held by a single person or small group of people. As the article mentions in a reference, there was an Epic of Evolution conference held by AAAS in which hundereds of scientists, theologians and philosophers attended. To say that the Epic of Evolution is a vanity article is like saying that Genomics is a vanity article. Momosean 23:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing References

Although this article cited many references already, I added a special reference section. Also, the "tone" issue was addressed by rephrasing the beginning of the article. Momosean 01:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)