Talk:Evolutionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- /Archive1 - 2004, July-Sept - 33kb (not full yet)
[edit] Michael Ruse
"Philosopher of science Michael Ruse has more recently come to the conclusion that evolution is ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions."
The article says no such thing - I inserted a link. The Michael Ruse sentence above is not true (at least if it refers to this article) and should be removed. Is this just another typically dishonest creationist strategy?
- I agree that it should be removed, but not because it is incorrect. He does actually say that. However, this article is not the right place for a sentence like this! The philosphical basis of all knowledge would have to be discussed to bring this statement in proper perspective. Awolf002 11:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Separation
This page should be merged with Creationism and Theory of Evolution. The essence of this page seems to condense down to the single sentence "Creationists refer to supporters of the Theory of Evolution as Evolutionism, seeking to treat it as a belief, rather than scientific theory". In addition, the existence of this page seems non NPOV. Therefore, for these two reasons, I have made this page a candidate for speedy deletion. CheeseDreams 20:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
---
I'm sorry. I don't understand. Do you disagree with the disambiguation that starts the page?
- This page is about the origins of the terms and concepts of evolution, evolutionist, and evolutionism as used by Charles Darwin and his contemporaries. For technical details of the origin of species, see evolution; for other meanings, see evolution (disambiguation). ---Rednblu | Talk 20:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This has been changed into a VFD. Please comment there.
[edit] Michael Ruse 1993 AAAS speech
I cut the following questionable paragraph here because the following paragraph is irrelevant to the Evolutionism page. The Evolutionism page is not about the Creation vs. evolution debate.
- <<Philosopher of science Michael Ruse has more recently come to the conclusion that evolution is ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions.>>
I think you have in mind a speech that Michael Ruse gave to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1993. In my opinion, what he was talking about is irrelevant to the Evolutionism page. If you get the whole speech and analyze it, I believe your analysis would be relevant to the Creation vs. evolution debate page. Would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The VFD page is veering towards making this page about the term as used in cultural anthropology, and moving all of the stuff about creationism to the Creation vs evolution debate page. Whether or not we agree on that I definitely agree that the above sentence has nothing to do with "Evolutionism" in any form and would, if it belongs on wikipedia at all, be best on C vs e debate. Joe D (t) 12:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal to clear up VFD issues
The first section of this article is about the term's use in cultural anthropology / social sciences, though you'd be forgiven for not realising that as it really doesn't make it clear, and that the section spends so much time talking about Darwin may confuse things more.
The second section is about creation vs evolution, and whatever we decide here/VFD the two sections do not belong on the same page - if we vote to keep all content this must at least be a disambiguation page.
My own opinion is that the creationism stuff should be merged into the Creationism vs Evolution article, and we add a note "This page is about the Evolutionism as used in the social sciences; you may have been looking for the term used in the Creationism vs Evolution debate."
Joe D (t) 14:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think that would be an acceptable solution CheeseDreams 19:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- P.s. the link is Creation vs. evolution debate CheeseDreams 19:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Fair deal. Let's do it. Kim Bruning 22:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- As I have already stated, I don't see this as an appropriate solution. The first section (Charles Darwin's (non-)use of the words evolution and evolutionism) belongs to evolution; the second one (usage by others) deserves a mention in evolution and/or evolution (disambiguation); the third one (use of evolutionism by creationists) should be moved to creation vs. evolution debate. There is no content which could not be merged elsewhere. This leaves us with the article being changed into a redirect; the best location would be evolution (disambiguation). - Mike Rosoft 13:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Have you beed reading the discussion on the VFD? Evolutionism used in the first section of the page is NOT about evolution. You could be forgiven for thinking that the first time, it is a bit ambiguous and poorly introduced, but this has been mentioned countless times. Joe D (t) 16:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- For the last time, I did, and I am not changing my vote. (And the use/non-use of the word evolution/evolutionism by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species is certainly relevant in the Evolution article. Not to mention that the first section barely mentions "evolutionism" at all.) - Mike Rosoft 03:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That's because typically Evolutionism is not Evolution. Kim Bruning 20:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- In that case, how is/was it relevant in the Evolutionism article? - Mike Rosoft 14:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- For the last time, I did, and I am not changing my vote. (And the use/non-use of the word evolution/evolutionism by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species is certainly relevant in the Evolution article. Not to mention that the first section barely mentions "evolutionism" at all.) - Mike Rosoft 03:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Have you beed reading the discussion on the VFD? Evolutionism used in the first section of the page is NOT about evolution. You could be forgiven for thinking that the first time, it is a bit ambiguous and poorly introduced, but this has been mentioned countless times. Joe D (t) 16:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- As I have already stated, I don't see this as an appropriate solution. The first section (Charles Darwin's (non-)use of the words evolution and evolutionism) belongs to evolution; the second one (usage by others) deserves a mention in evolution and/or evolution (disambiguation); the third one (use of evolutionism by creationists) should be moved to creation vs. evolution debate. There is no content which could not be merged elsewhere. This leaves us with the article being changed into a redirect; the best location would be evolution (disambiguation). - Mike Rosoft 13:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--- <<Begin copy from the VfD page of votes against this proposal>>
- For reference, I also have read and oppose the suggestion on Talk:Evolutionism to split the Evolutionism page into the POVs on "evolutionism." This suggested split is as much a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy as would be the split and merge of the Capitalism page into the Capital page and the PrivateOwnership vs. PublicOwnership debate page. Such a split into Main articles: with summaries on the MainPage might be NPOV appropriate if the Evolutionism page were huge, which it is not. A disambiguation page may be appropriate, but in my opinion, the naming convention for that disambiguation page should follow the NPOV naming-convention policy used in constructing the Capital (disambiguation) page. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:14, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--- <<End copy from the VfD page of votes against this proposal>>
I just created an Evolutionism (disambiguation) page for your review. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Seen it, commenting there. Kim Bruning 20:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Effect of the Recent Adjustment of the Evolutionism Page
<copied from VFD>
Why is that page discussing usage of a word? Isnt that the purpose of entries in Wiktionary (and disambiguation pages) instead?
I don't see why sections on "Sampling of use of Evolutionism" and the like should constitute a valid encyclopedia article.
What remains afterward is
- one or two paragraphs about the use of the term by creationists
-
- this could be moved to the Creation vs. evolution debate page
- a few quotes about evidence for evolution used by darwin
-
- this could be moved to Evolution
- a dictionary etymology
-
- this should be moved to the Wiktionary
- discussion of one or two theories of albiogenesis etc. before Evolution
-
- this should be moved to a new article such as Early non-biblical theories of albiogenesis (but with a better title).
Who agrees? CheeseDreams 01:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
---
I have waited two days now for someone to step forward in support of the above proposal. :) Clearly I disagree on all points, as you can see from the edit history of Evolutionism. :(( I suggest the following:
- Let's leave the Evolutionism page with all the decorative VfD tags, Merge tags, Cut tags, Split tags, and Move to Wiktionary tags at the top of the page as they are :) --or feel free to add other similar holiday tags--as long as the "system people" do not object to seeing the Evolutionism page show up in surprising places! :)))
- Until New Year's Day 2005, let's all actually read the references cited. I was amazed to read for the first time the totality of Erasmus Darwin's "Temple of Nature" for which I could not find an online link :(( --and I notice the red link on Temple of Nature. I see some of the sources, references, and citations are incomplete, and I will see if I can get some adventuresome Wikipedia editors to complete those sources, references, and citations before New Year's Day 2005. :)
- I will pitch in here to help complete some of the outline for the "Evolutionism 1875 to the present" section. By my cursory examination, completing this section would consist mainly of summarizing and linking to existing Main articles: already in Wikipedia. But we shall see. :(
- On New Year's Day, let's submit the Evolutionism page to "peer review" and ask everyone to quote and cite the other sources that would remove any remaining POV--in preparation for submitting this page for consideration for "Featured Article" fixes that the Wikipedia community would recommend.
Is that a deal? ---Rednblu | Talk 17:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No. I would like to see what other people say. Also see the history of this talk page. At least one other person than the two of us has commented today. CheeseDreams 23:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Usage and context of "evolutionism"
[Is "evolutionism" used by creationists to characterize their opponents?] I believe so. (Pun not intended.) I have never seen the term evolutionism or evolutionist in any other context. It seems to be used to somehow level the playing field, since the discussion between creationists and evolutionists—creationism vs. evolutionism—sounds much better than Creation vs. the theory of evolution, which would sound strictly like religion vs. science. Also using the term theory of creation would never be used by anyone who says that evolution is “only a theory”—and rightly so, since not being a theory in the sense of scientific method would inevitably imply that it must be a theory in the informal sense, meaning speculation. The unfortunate creation science is used [1] but rarely, probably because it sounds like an oxymoron, and feels somehow ironic in its proper context. Personally, I find the usage and genesis of evolutionism (again, pun not intended) quite interesting and I think it would be very important to thoroughly explain if there is going to be an article on evolutionism. In any case, I don’t really mind if people call me an evolutionist, as long as they also remember to call me a gravitationist, electromagnetist, quantum mechanic and special relativity theoretician. Rafał Pocztarski 19:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[Should we define evolutionism as just "a theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin"?] I have to disagree. If there is going to be a separate article on evolutionism, it should contain much more than merely a reference to evolution and Darwin. No one would use the terms evolutionism and evolutionist if they meant exactly the same as the theory of evolution and someone who accepts it, respectively. In my opinion the article on evolutionism—if there is going to be one, or a section in some other article otherwise—should explain who tends to use those terms, and in what contexts (see my other comment). E.g. I have never heard anyone calling herself an evolutionist, just like I have never heard anyone describing herself as a gravitationist because she happens to accept the theory of gravitation. Furthermore, there are people who call others “Darwinists” but interestingly no one seems to call anyone “Newtonists” or “Einsteinists.” It seems that “evolutionists” are those who strongly oppose the rejection of evolution by creationists, but it is not the rejection of evolution per se that seems to provoke such strong emotional reactions of those so called “evolutionists” but rather the rejection of the scientific method. Therefore, I would call them “scientists” instead of “evolutionists.” Rafał Pocztarski 20:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whatever the final decision will be on whether to have separate articles or just short sections in already existing articles, I believe that it is important to note who, when, and why uses the terms “evolutionism” and “evolutionists,” for as we can see the fact is that some people do, and usually those who reject the theory of evolution, as a quick Google search for evolutionists and evolutionism seems to show very well. The opinion whether it is a good idea to use those words should probably be left to the reader who would have enough informations to base that opinion on some facts. Rafał Pocztarski 02:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
---
I have read what you wrote and I agree with the substance of what you wrote. Well said! ---Rednblu | Talk 02:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I agree too that Evolutionism is used almost exclusively as a derogatory term, and still do not think it justifies a seperate page, neither for its dictionary definition/etymology (Move to wiktionary) or its use as a derogatory term (move to Evolution vs. creation debate or Creationism, or both). CheeseDreams 19:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Modern evolutionism research
--- Begin references container for quotations and citations to published scholars of evolutionism
[edit] Early history of evolutionism
- Carneiro describes it this way, "In the seventeenth century, 'evolution' began to be used in English to refer to an orderly sequence of events, particularly one in which the outcome was somehow contained within it from the start." Since the outcome was already contained within every prior stage of the earth, life, and universe, everything would happen as it has without divine intervention. (Carneiro 2003:1). For example, Sir Matthew Hale in 1677 used the term evolution to attack the atheistic atomism of Democritus and his student Epicurus. (Goodrum 2002:212-214). In that attack, Hale summarized the atomist idea that the vibrations and collisions of atoms in the void without divine intervention had formed "Primordial Seeds" (semina) which were the "immediate, primitive, productive Principles of Men, Animals, Birds and Fishes." (Hale 1677:257). According to Hale, the mechanism of the "Primordial Seeds" is an "absurdity" because "it must have potentially at least the whole Systeme of Humane Nature, or at least that Ideal Principle or Configuration thereof, in the evolution whereof the complement and formation of the Humane Nature must consist. . . and all this drawn from a fortuitous coalition of senseless and dead Atoms." (Hale 1677:257, 259) (emphasis added).
- "By analyzing the ways scientific and religious factors interacted in the debate over the spontaneous generation of the first humans we will not only make a contribution to the history of seventeenth-century atomism but also link problems and ideas in the physical sciences with those in the biological and anthropological sciences. At the same time this study illustrates the ways in which scientific ideas were shaped by, or needed to respond to, ideas and concerns that had their roots in religion." (Goodrum 2002: 207).
- Hale, M. (1677). The Primitive Origination of Mankind, Considered and Examined According to the Light of Nature (London).
- Goodrum, M.R. (2002). Atomism, atheism, and the spontaneous generation of human beings: The debate over a natural origin of the first humans in seventeenth-century Britain. Journal of the History of Ideas 63 (2), pp. 207-224.
- On line link for Paul Elliott, "Erasmus Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and the Origins of the Evolutionary Worldview in British Provincial Scientific Culture, 1770–1850" (History of Science Society) (University of Chicago Press) [2]
- Detailed analysis of what evolutionist History of ideas scholars call the "biological evolutionism" of Erasmus Darwin
- Primer, Irwin. (1964). Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature: Progress, evolution, and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Journal of the History of Ideas 25 (1), pp. 58-76.
- Erasmus Darwin's footnote in his Temple of Nature (1803), pp. 166-67n is analyzed on page 62 of the above (Irwin (1964), p. 62).
- The reference to Eleusinian Mysteries alludes to the seasonal flowering of life in the spring. That is, the reference to Eleusinian Mysteries in the title of the above article makes an analogy with Erasmus Darwin's sketch in the above footnote of Erasmus Darwin's hypothesis of repeated collapse of the Universe into "one central chaos" with an automatic convergence of earth-like planets from the dust of the crushing collapse, followed by the automatic repopulation of some earth-like planets with life like ours--because of the "immutable laws" innate in "matter."
- Primer, Irwin. (1964). Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature: Progress, evolution, and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Journal of the History of Ideas 25 (1), pp. 58-76.
[edit] Evolutionary biology
-
-
- [There will be some duplication across categories. Duplications will be eliminated in the final assembly. Order of listing is "Most recent first."]
-
- PUBMED
- Anderson, W. (2004). Natural histories of infectious disease: ecological vision in twentieth-century biomedical science. Osiris 19, pp. 39-61
- Author's scholarly institution. Department of Medical History and Bioethics, University of Wisconsin Medical School.
- Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("During the twentieth century, disease ecology emerged as a distinct disciplinary network within infectious diseases research. The key figures were Theobald Smith, F. Macfarlane Burnet, Rene Dubos, and Frank Fenner. They all drew on Darwinian evolutionism to fashion an integrative (but rarely holistic) understanding of disease processes, distinguishing themselves from reductionist 'chemists' and mere 'microbe hunters.'") (emphasis added) (p. 39)
- Disease ecology. Sample 1999 NIH RFA.
- Amouroux, R. (2004). "W. Bolsche's book". Freud and German evolutionism in the beginning of the 20th century. Gesnerus 61 (1-2), pp. 24-36 (in French)
- Author's scholarly institution. Hopital Armand Trousseau, Service d'anesthesie.
- Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("The task at hand is to prepare the ground for a study of German evolutionism, both popular and scientific, and its ties to psychoanalysis.") (emphasis added) (p. 24) (PUBMED translation of abstract from French into English)
- Elliott, P. (2003). Erasmus Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and the origins of the evolutionary worldview in British provincial scientific culture, 1770-1780. Isis 94 (1), pp. 1-29. (already cited above and quoted in the current Evolutionism page).
- Author's scholarly institution. School of Geography, University of Nottingham.
- Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("Most important, it shows that his [ Herbert Spencer's ] evolutionism was originally stimulated by his association with the Derby philosophical community, for it was through this group--of which his father, who also appears to have espoused a deistic evolutionary theory, was a member--that he was first exposed to progressive Enlightenment social and educational philosophies and to the evolutionary worldview of Erasmus Darwin, the first president of the Derby Philosophical Society.") (emphasis added) (p. 1)
- . . . Others to follow [Under assembly]
- Anderson, W. (2004). Natural histories of infectious disease: ecological vision in twentieth-century biomedical science. Osiris 19, pp. 39-61
[edit] Cultural anthropology
- JSTOR search on Anthropology POV
- [Under assembly]
[edit] Sociology
- JSTOR search on Sociology POV
- [Under assembly]
[edit] History of ideas
- JSTOR search on 1) History and 2) History of science POVs
- [Under assembly]
[edit] Marxist thought
- JSTOR search on Economics POVs
- [Under assembly]
Marxism is concerned with speculative future changes to societies, rather than a description of past changes to the genes and structure of organisms; and as such has nothing directly to do with Evolutionist theories.
[edit] Secular Judaism
- JSTOR search on Religion, Judaism POVs
- [Under assembly]
[edit] Modern controversies
- JSTOR search on Religion, Political science, and Philosophy POVs
- Owen, J.J. (1999). Church and state in Stanley Fish's antiliberalism. American Political Science Review 93 (4), pp. 911-924.
- Author's scholarly institution. Boston College.
- Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ([Stephen L.] Carter (1987) uses the debate between "creationism" and "evolutionism" to argue that the liberal faith is indeed without warrant. The faith in reason, Carter asserts, can claim no epistemological supremacy over any religious faith.") (emphasis added) (p. 913)
- [Article on art theory]
- Davis, E.B. (1995). Fundamentalism and folk science between the wars. Religion and American Culture 5 (2), pp. 217-248.
- Author's scholarly institution. University of Pennsylvania, Mellon Fellow in the Humanities.
- Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("For all of these reasons, the category "folk science" is an appropriate tool for understanding the history of evolutionism and creationism. Above all, it helps us see why the usual terms "religion" and "science" are inadequate to describe the past encounters: the traditional lines of demarcation between religion and science have often been blurred, if not obliterated. Folk science, as Van Till observes, "provides a standing invitation to the unwary to confuse science and religion . . . ." Nowhere is this more evident than in Rimmer's 1930 debate with Samuel Christian Schmucker (1860-1943), a biologist with a national reputation as a populizer of evolution. This essay tells the story of that debate, sketches the lives and beliefs of the two principal characters, and argues that Rimmer's antievolutionism and Schmucker's evolutionary theism are best understood as competing varieties of folk science.") (emphasis added) (p. 219)
- Others to follow. [Under assembly]
- Curtis, R.C. (1986). Are methodologies theories of scientific rationality? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (1), pp. 135-161.
- Author's scholarly institution. York University, Ontario.
- Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("[Charles] Darwin was not 'intuitively' following the methodology of one or another of our contemporary historian/philosophers. Rather, he made a critical decision in the late 1830s, to try to satisfy a well-articulated methodology which we now think is in many ways mistaken, the partly Baconian, partly Kantian methodology of his scientific colleague, William Whewell. By accepting Whewellian metascience, initially, as part of the unproblematic background to his scientific problem--the problem of species distribution--Darwin did what was necessary to promote a critical discussion of the relative merits of his own solution, evolutionism, and its main rival, creationism. But eventually this led him into a debate about the merits of Whewellian metascience itself. The result was that after 1860 Darwin gave us good arguments against some of the values which had guided the scientific community until then.") (emphasis added) (p. 137)
- "The terms “catastrophism” and “uniformitarianism” were introduced in 1837 by William Whewell in his History of the Inductive Sciences to describe the two leading schools of theoretical geology at that time." [3]
- Others to follow. [Under assembly]
- Owen, J.J. (1999). Church and state in Stanley Fish's antiliberalism. American Political Science Review 93 (4), pp. 911-924.
--- End references container
[edit] VfD debate
The vfd debate related to this article may be found at Talk:Evolutionism/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And may I remind everyone that the summary conclusion of that debate as found on the Talk:Evolutionism/delete page has been amended and forged by an unauthorized editor. ;) It was a good joke, 8( but I hereby request that 1) either the amender and forger or 2) an authorized editor correct that summary conclusion and restore that summary conclusion to its original, rightful, and authorized statement of "The result of the debate was KEEP". I understand that the tampering with the summary statement was frivolous and was made in good faith. :)) But the record should be accurate, all good jokes and yuks aside! :(( ---Rednblu | Talk 17:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)- I note from the History file that as of 15:09, 13 Nov 2004, the VfD record at Talk:Evolutionism/delete was restored to its original, rightful, and authorized statement of "The result of the debate was KEEP". ---Rednblu | Talk 21:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And may I remind everyone that it was not a forgery, just a descriptive summary of the other conclusion (see the comment on the edit history), i.e. that this article should be split up into various parts - also see the debate conclusion - where people started changing their votes because of this splitting up proposal. CheeseDreams 18:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No worries, first keep, then go for the next step, like splitting it up, if you insist. Let's discuss that here now! Kim Bruning 19:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For example; This page: Evilgelical Christians has no more a POV title than Evolutionism. Either both titles are removed or both remain. CheeseDreams 11:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Evilgelical Christians is not a title but a (perhaps unfortunate) redirect to Fundamentalist Christianity article. [4] [5] I think that “Either both titles are removed or both remain” ultimatum is incorrect no matter what is you personal opinion on either of those articles (or redirect names) and on the deletion thereof. People interested in science (evolution) and those interested in religion (Fundamentalist Christianity) are not exactly the same people, so even if the two issues you present were identical—which they are not—demanding a consistent result of voting from two different sets of people would be forgetting that votes for deletion are not cast by a single group of judges, but by any user interested in a given subject and dispute. Rafał Pocztarski 13:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Secular Creationists? Do they actually exist? CheeseDreams 23:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- “Secular creationists” is an oxymoron so obviously no, they do not actually exist—by definition. That having been clarified, the people interested in debates over scientific articles and those interested in debates over religious ones—as well as people participating in voting regarding the deletion of Evolutionism and Fundamentalist Christianity, respectively—are not the same people nevertheless, as Talk:Evolutionism and Talk:Fundamentalist Christianity—as well as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Evolutionism and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fundamentalist Christianity, for that matter—seem to demonstrate rather well. Rafał Pocztarski 02:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The only people who know Evilgelical Christians exists are people who have read Talk:Evolutionism after I mentioned it. As far as I can tell. I only created it to proove a point. CheeseDreams 21:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- “Secular creationists” is an oxymoron so obviously no, they do not actually exist—by definition. That having been clarified, the people interested in debates over scientific articles and those interested in debates over religious ones—as well as people participating in voting regarding the deletion of Evolutionism and Fundamentalist Christianity, respectively—are not the same people nevertheless, as Talk:Evolutionism and Talk:Fundamentalist Christianity—as well as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Evolutionism and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fundamentalist Christianity, for that matter—seem to demonstrate rather well. Rafał Pocztarski 02:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- If you are trying to point out that there are no VfD for Fundamentalist Christianity, then yes, that was my point. Please keep the context in mind—it’s related to the “Either both titles are removed or both remain” ultimatum, which I find incorrect even though there are no secular creationists (which was supposedly an argument against my original point). Please also note that I have not casted my vote regarding the deletion of evolutionism, so it was meant as neither argument for deletion, nor a one against it. I have no strong views about a separate article. I only think that it might be important to write about the usage and context of the term evolutionism if we are going to write about it, either on Wikipedia or in the Wiktionary. Rafał Pocztarski 12:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no objection what soever to usage and context of the term evolutionism as an article title. However, I would strongly recommend that it ought to be in Wiktionary (as is clearly suggested by the phrase "usage and context of the term"). CheeseDreams 21:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If you are trying to point out that there are no VfD for Fundamentalist Christianity, then yes, that was my point. Please keep the context in mind—it’s related to the “Either both titles are removed or both remain” ultimatum, which I find incorrect even though there are no secular creationists (which was supposedly an argument against my original point). Please also note that I have not casted my vote regarding the deletion of evolutionism, so it was meant as neither argument for deletion, nor a one against it. I have no strong views about a separate article. I only think that it might be important to write about the usage and context of the term evolutionism if we are going to write about it, either on Wikipedia or in the Wiktionary. Rafał Pocztarski 12:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Votes to move page title to Usage and context of "evolutionism"
[edit] Support
- Move. CheeseDreams 21:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Move. It seems I'm new to this hot-button issue, so apologies if I'm repeating others. The fact remains that "evolutionism" is not a belief system/ideology/theory/entity in and of itself. It is a term accentuating a certain point of view concerning the scientific theory of evolution. As such, the sole purpose of the article is to talk about the term and its usage, not the theory. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not so. Within sociology, anthropology, and history of ideas, just for starters, "evolutionism" is theory that definitely is not accentuating a certain point of view about evolutionary biology. I refer you, for example, to Robert Carneiro's Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History. Furthermore, according to Robert Carneiro, the term "evolutionism" is used in anthropology to describe a whole set of theories that include but are not limited to evolutionary biology. What published scholar agrees with what you said? ---Rednblu | Talk 06:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Object
- Keep, the idea is just sabotage. And while were at it, slapping the "move to wiktionary" thing on it is not only absurd but downright childish. ;Bear 06:38, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
- Keep, while I have problems with this page the move is anacronistic: "Discussion of usage and context" is implied by "having an encyclopedia article". Why did you move it when there was clearly no concensus? Joe D (t) 12:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The history of a term is perfectly valid for a Wikipedia article. See for example Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. --Fastfission 20:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- We don't, however, have anti-choice or anti-life, which are often used by opposing sides. A person who believes in evolution would not, I daresay, characterize him- or herself as a believer in evolutionism. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Evolutionism" is a classification term--like Homo sapiens--to an anthropology or history of ideas scholar. Just because a New Yorker never calls himself a Homo sapiens does not diminish how Homo sapiens the New Yorker is--if you know what Homo sapiens means. ---Rednblu | Talk 07:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We don't, however, have anti-choice or anti-life, which are often used by opposing sides. A person who believes in evolution would not, I daresay, characterize him- or herself as a believer in evolutionism. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I can see why you might be able to argue that the article should be deleted. But that's been voted down, so don't try getting it effectively deleted through some roundabout method. —Simetrical (talk) 23:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Such Nonsense
I tried to nominate this page for deletion and got sent here. There is no such word as "Evolutionism" in Merriam-Webster on-line nor in my 1986 American Heritage Dictionary. All the references on the bottom of the page are to creationist literature, which should be a clue (even to the clueless, such as Creationists) that there is no issue to be discussed here, except if the clueless want to talk to the clueless, for which purpose they ought not to use Wikipedia. The general concept being promoted, I gather, is that people who believe in evolution are following a creed, and the creationists want to tar this creed with other labels like materialism and atheism. This does not demonstrate that people who accept Darwin's theory and its descendents are athiests or materialists; it demonstrates that creationists are unable to understand how a person could accept evolution and worship God! It illustrates the narrowness, the stubbornness of these "crusaders," who have to force everyone into their restrictive channel of thought and belief. Give it up! Let ordinary people live and believe in evolution and religion, or not, withuout trying to squeeze anyone who does not blindly follow you into the procrustean bed of atheism, materialism, and crassness. Pdn 02:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- VfD notice inappropriate as it links to the Archive Talk:Evolutionism/delete: "This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP." Changed to Disputed tag so that debate takes place on this talk page. dave souza 11:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Rather than deleting a VfD notice, shouldn't you rather fix the link? I doubt VfD would succeed, but it might as well be handled properly. Pdn has the right to nominate a page for deletiion. Guettarda 12:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly Keep: this page gives good information on the historical development of "evolutionism" and is usefully linked from the history of evolutionary thought. While the word may not appear in some U.S. dictionaries, it is defined in my copies of The Concise Oxford Dictionary and Chambers Concise 20th Century Dictionary, both of which show "evolution" as having more meanings than "biological evolution". The very first reference at the foot of the page is to Robert Carneiro, a proponent of evolution. Given that Wikipedia is international and that those originally using the term were British, censoring the word because of a current argument in the U.S. would be like putting a VfD notice on Liberalism because "liberal" is misused in current U.S. political debate and similarly has had different meanings over time and in different countries.- dave souza 11:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Strongly Remove: This page is nothing more than a woefully biased and totally dishonest political attempt by religious creationists to subvert the reality of evolution advocacy. Evolution is a scientific theory backed up by absolutely overwhelming and exhaustive evidence; it is not a belief in any religious sense of the word, and the motive behind evolution advocacy is scientific, not political. Pages such as this need to be removed if Wikipedia itself is to be taken as a serious source for good and accurate information. Aaarrrggh 17:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bleargh.
"Evolutionism" and "evolutionist" are shibboleths used by religious cranks who have a problem with certain biological theories, nothing more. REMOVE.
- Except when it's used by scholars, who are referring to a certain way of viewing the world that has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Novium (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] POV header
It has been five months since CheeseDreams added the POV header, insisting that the term was only used by Creationsits. Clearly this has historically not be the case, as the page well documents. I don't see anybody else clamoring about a POV dispute. Unless anyone objects, I'll remove it. --Fastfission 22:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It probably would be a good idea... --goncalopp 30 June 2005 00:56 (UTC)
- Very much in favour of removing it, but I cannot tell a lie, I think it was me wot added the header in place of Pdn's VfD notice which seemed to refer to a previously settled VfD, Anyway, please do remove it.dave souza 30 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)
[edit] Church
Church position must have a prominent section IMO, creationism being the main opponent.
BTW I stumbled upon the following claim:
- John Paul II wrote a letter to the Pontificial Academy of Sciences in 1997 advising Vatican scientists (and Catholics at large) that the Church doesn’t have a problem with the scientific theory of evolution
Any idea what exactly was this about? Mikkalai 17:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- See Evolution#Evolution_and_religion (plus the Talk archives) and Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. Guettarda 18:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- read the full letter ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 14:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Article should need some statements of Christian evolution-accepting and evolution-proponent stand points. Creationists are a small but loud society, most often fundamentalist anti-interpretative sects interspersed among diverse low church denominations. Said: Rursus 10:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
I think this article violates No personal essays (imho so does "Intelligent design"). In my opinion most of the stuff can and should be moved to Creation science, History of evolutionary thought, Evolution, Erasmus Darwin, and other places. The current "definition" of evolutionism on this page is the same as Evolution. I think a more correct definition and introduction would be something along the lines of
- "Evolutionism refers to the belief in the scientific theory of evolution. For the most part, the term is used only by Creation scientists who believe the theory is unsound. Often the phrase is used as a perjorative to draw attention to what some Creationists believe is closed-mindedness amongst scientists...etc"
What do the regular editors think?--Ben 18:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- (Just an afterthought, the word contemporarily should probably be in there somewhere to distinguish contemporary from historical usage.) --Ben 18:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- And another thing is that the second paragraph is very confusing. If "anthropologists and biologists" of today use the word to refer to "those who believe that the cultures or life forms being studied are evolving to a particular form" then why isn't that the definition? Is this right? The whole "in the 19th century" part seems very ill-placed. Do they "refer to "Evolutionists" in the 20th century" differently? --Ben 20:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- And another afterthought, it should probably say "believe in the soundness of the scientific theory of evolution." --Ben 20:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Or how about this definition:
- "Evolutionism, contemporarily, is often used to refer to the belief in the soundness of the scientific theory of evolution, especially by those who do not believe in the theory's soundness. It has specific meanings, however, in relevant sciences where it is used to refer to the idea that certain phenomena evolve to an axiomatic or archetypal form.
- In the late 19th century, evolution, as in the dictionary definition of evolution: "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form," was popular study among scientific theorists of all sorts. Theories of this sort were called "evolutionist."
--Darwin caused the paradigm shift? Or was there already a focus on evolution? Or did Darwin just make it work... or...?
- Evolutionism in Social Sciences
- Main article Social evolutionism
- In social sciences such as anthropology and sociology, evolutionism is still used in this meaning* and studied today. Anthropological evolutionism was developed in the 19th century and came after structural functionalism. It started out as the theory that societal development necessarily proceeded to a more "civilized" society. Since then, the theory has developed and is a key component of various forms such as ecological anthropology and ? [6]
*as in the first paragraph. Need to rework this to read better (and also have some citations as it's mainly definition based.) --mention social structure. --mention social darwinism.
- Evolutionism in Biology
- Main article History of evolutionary thought
- In the physical sciences, evolutionism was at first coined in geology...
- Fell out of use and was used solely in biology... Evolutionism was used as in the contemporary meaning, referring to Darwinism at the time. In biology, evolutionism in the sense of archetypal genotypes, or "final forms"... is rejected as a result of processes such as genetic drift†.
- Religion and Evolutionism
- Main article Philosophy of biology
- Evolutionism can also refer to a teleological belief in divine or divinely guided form called orthogenesis."
- (†it might be good to mention something like phenotypic plasticity, genetic accommodation or whatever is actually the right thing here (I'm not a biologist so I'm not sure). polymorphism.. I'm just browsing around for these..) --Ben 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Collected wikilinks that might be helpful:
- category:history of evolutionary biology
- category:history of ideas
- 19th-century philosophy
- emergence
"The nature of emergence
According to Jeffrey Goldstein’s helpful overview (1999), the term 'emergence' was first used by the English philosopher G. H. Lewes well over 100 years ago. The term was taken up in the 1920s by "a loosely joined movement in the sciences, philosophy and theology known as emergent evolutionism…" (Goldstein 1999:53)."[7]
[edit] Evolutionism (philosophy)
Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Evolutionism Very interesting stuff. I think the article should be based around this sort of thing. Evolutionism as a "family of ideas."
"Evolutionism is a family of ideas which affirm that the universe and some or all of its parts have undergone irreversible, cumulative changes such that the number, variety, and complexity of the parts have increased. Evolutionism is thus opposed to the belief that the universe and its parts are eternally the same; or that they have been the same since they were created; or that they are now the same as they have been periodi- cally in the past; or that they are emanations from a higher and perfect source. If only living things are included, theories of organic evolution result...."
More philosophy-related Evolutionist Theories and Whitehead’s Philosophy
Also search for "emergent evolutionism"
See also emergentism
[edit] Comments
Leave comments here, but also feel free to play around a bit in my suggestion. --Ben 23:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Dave Souza's change to the intro is much better imho, but I still think a lot of work needs to be done. I still don't have a very full grasp on it though, so I'm going to hold off editing until I do.--Ben 03:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Please take this poll and indicate whether you think a rewrite/major overhaul is a good idea (as in Support/Object/Neutral). Note that a vote of "support" doesn't necessarily mean you support my (Ben's) suggestion specifically, just that you agree the topic needs a lot of work.
(sign with ~~~~)
- . Support for reasons I already stated. --Ben 23:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support: the pre-Darwin history bit's ok, but the modern meanings need sorted. Note that evolutionist re natural selection still appears in the UK without the connotation of Creationist abuse. ...dave souza 12:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Anthropology and Biology
I think the current second paragraph would confuse the reader when it comes to Anthropological evolutionism and Biological evolutionism. I find it sort of confuses the two. I'm going to think about it a bit and change it, but if anyone disagrees (or wants to change it themselves) let me know. Or if you disagree after I change it, write why here.--Ben 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removed paragraph
Until this is cited, it has no place in the article. In fact, this entire article is as POV as anything I've ever seen, and I will tag that as well.
- "The terms "evolutionism" and "evolutionist" are still used for theories about the development of cultures and civilisations. In modern anthropology and biology, the term evolutionism is used specifically for historical theories or beliefs of early sociocultural evolutionism developed in the 18th and 19th century that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves through progressive changes that are heritable.[citation needed] This idea was applied to cultures and societies as well as to living organisms. [citation needed]"
•Jim62sch• 22:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- How did this article get into this shape? It is a travesty. And whoever put this in the Evolution or Biology Wikiproject ought to be ashamed. This article is basically Creationist nonsense. Orangemarlin 05:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I could answer that, but I won't (it'd be an uncivil reply)
- I removed this, "==Evolutionism 1875 to the present==
- Summary of the Second, Fifth Chapter of Robert Carneiro's Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History " and will likely be removing the others. •Jim62sch• 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Jim, I've never known you to be uncivil (now ducking under table in case G-d decides to send lightning my way). Anyways, you and Filll did a great job in cleaning up this article!!!! Do you know how I found this travesty? Well, I was reverting some schmuck of an anonymous vandal's work on some Evolution article, and I was checking his contributions--he had struck here. Never knew about this article???? We need to be cleaning up this crap more. Orangemarlin 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Major crapectomy
I propose that as Jim62 has proposed, we roll back most of the article to its 2004 version: [8]. I look at the long voluminous discussion and it just makes my eyes cross. Why do we need so much discussion of a basically nonsense term that is only used by a few eccentric creationists?--Filll 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bias
The author is heavily biased toward evolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.134.9 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Which one among the dozens of authors are you accusing, specifically? wildie · wilđ di¢e · wilł die 11:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why evolutionist is "bad"
- I guess I am somewhat confused as the why people disagree with the term Evolutionist, or Evolutionism. Anyone who believes in Christ is called a Christian. So why not call someone who believes in Evolution an Evolutionist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rg006 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Certain words acquire negative connotations depending on their usage and who uses them.
Imagine the following scenario. Suppose someone decided that "Christians" should be called "Christianists", and then proceeded to say that Christianists are:
- liars
- child molesters
- gullible
- stupid
- snake handlers
- dishonest
- toothless and drooling yokels
- cheaters
- sex fiends
- morons who speak in tongues, writhing on the floor
- drunken fools
- uneducated
- people who engage in incest
- morons
- inbred
- racists
- people who engage in sex with barnyard animals
- homophobes
- trigger-happy gun fanatics
- hypocrites
- sexists
- conservative fundamentalists
- war mongers
- anti-semites
- full of hate for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, foreigners, people with dark skin, etc
Suppose that this was repeated over and over and over. Christianists were painted as evil devil worshippers in numerous publications and in the media and public discourse. People gave frequent speeches saying that Christianists were the most horrible people on the planet and suggested that they should be jailed or worse. Suppose that the public was whipped into a frenzy of hatred towards Christianists based on this. Suppose that these people vilifying Christianists refused to call them by the preferred name, Christians, for years and years and years. After a while, the word Christianist might be viewed negatively, do you not think?--Filll 18:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
When did this repeating happen over and over? And it seems that many statements in this article do not have sources so it seems like original research. Someone suggested evolutionists should be jailed? People are in a frenzy. Sorry I missed all of this. Do you have cites? Imbrella 00:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- And for the fact that "evolutionist" is considered a pejorative term, because it really is defined as a "belief" in evolution as much as there is a belief in G_d. I don't believe in Evolution, and I don't accept Evolution because of faith, opinion, conviction--I accept Evolution as a fact, because it has been subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, because of the substantial proof, and because a lot of people smarter than I have studied and accepted it. Evolution is not a doctrine, it is not a dogma, and it does not require faith to accept. Therefore, I am a scientist by trade, by education and by lifestyle. Evolutionist means nothing to me, and is not a word that any scientist would use to describe their understanding of that particular field of science. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the use of the term D_rwinism is OK. Why do so many of the editors here get upset about it. D_rwin was a great thinker. And a very good writer and philospher. Imbrella 00:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- To use a more direct comparison than Filll, look at how the term Islamist is used. JoshuaZ 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Charles Darwin and The Brethren of Purity
The article includes a section:
Ibn Miskawayh's al-Fawz al-Asghar and the Brethren of Purity's Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity (The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa) expressed evolutionary ideas on how species evolved from matter, into plants, and then animals, then apes, and then humans. English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812, while Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar were also available in European universities by the 19th century. These works likely had an influence on Charles Darwin, who was a student of Arabic, and his inception of Darwinism.
It is unclear to me how the sources indicate that Darwin was likely influenced by The Brethren of Purity work. Also, no sources are given which describe Darwin as a scholar of Arabic. This bit is also included in the Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Purity article almost verbatim. Thus it is a bit suspect in my view, unless better sources emerge. Perhaps this section should be removed. 69.15.214.217 14:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Darwin - a student of Arabic?
I removed the following line:
These works likely had an influence on Charles Darwin, who was a student of Arabic, and his inception of Darwinism.[1][2]
Since I haven't been able to find anything that supports this statement. If anyone else can find a reliable source that supports its claims then please show it. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for religious propaganda and fantasies.
Joe_hill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe hill (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing. But you still have to be able to show some evidence or sources that support your claims. I have found nothing that supports the claim that "Darwin studied Arabic because he was interested in Islam" or that Darwins theory of evolution is based on or inspired by older arabic sources. That's my point. --Joe hill 14:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following part of the article since it's speculations that doesn't really add any useful information:
"English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812,[3] while Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar were also available in European universities by the 19th century. English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812.[4] Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar and The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa were also available at the University of Cambridge.It has been suggested that these manuscripts may have influenced those interested in the transmutation of species at that time, possibly including Charles Darwin.[2][5]" --Joe hill 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- This was discussed a while ago at Talk:History of evolutionary thought#Arabic influence on Charles Darwin? and it's most unlikely that he learnt Arabic, or that the "works" had any direct influence on him – his grandfather, Lamarck and Grant are known sources of more detailed ideas which did directly influence him. The claims seem to be put forward by apologists for Arabic science, and appear to be in print but of very dubious reliability. .. dave souza, talk 14:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Appears to have had an impact - in what way?
"The polymath Ibn al-Haytham wrote a book in which he argued for evolutionism (although not natural selection), and numerous other Islamic scholars and scientists, such as Ibn Miskawayh, the Brethren of Purity, and the polymaths Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, Nasir al-Din Tusi, and Ibn Khaldun, discussed and developed these ideas. Translated into Latin, these works began to appear in the West after the Renaissance and appear to have had an impact on Western science."
Can anyone give any examples? Exactly in what way does it appear like muslim ideas had an impact on western science when it comes to the theory of evolution? If no one can give any examples of this - then I suggest we remove or rewrite that part. --Joe hill (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Irrelevancy
Having Judaism, Socialism, etc. in the "other isms" bit is totally silly, they are directly comparing it to creationism and other isms, no irrelevant examples need to be given. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, when reverting, I accidentally made it a minor edit. Oops. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- How is it a bit silly? The other -isms are there to give the reader a further understanding of how the term is being used to imply a belief, dogma or a religion, as opposed to it being a scientific theory. In fact, the sentence following the part you keep deleting mentions exactly what I just wrote. So, anything else? Baegis (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- It should not be unrelated to the page, there should not be a link to Socialism, Nationalism, Judaism, etc. on a page about Evolutionism. I would put "to imply that it is equal to Creationism and other isms" then they can be linked to the ism page, and then they can understand what an ism is. There should not be irrelevant examples. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Except that the article ism is irrelevant. I think you mean -ism, except that is about the history of the suffix -ism, apparently. Irrelevant. In short, there is no suitable article to link to. It's better to give a list of ad hoc examples, I think. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- It should not be unrelated to the page, there should not be a link to Socialism, Nationalism, Judaism, etc. on a page about Evolutionism. I would put "to imply that it is equal to Creationism and other isms" then they can be linked to the ism page, and then they can understand what an ism is. There should not be irrelevant examples. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- How is it a bit silly? The other -isms are there to give the reader a further understanding of how the term is being used to imply a belief, dogma or a religion, as opposed to it being a scientific theory. In fact, the sentence following the part you keep deleting mentions exactly what I just wrote. So, anything else? Baegis (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Consensus. Reverting to examples given. Goo2you (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Went back and reviewed recent edits more closely. I agree with Baegis' edit here. Reverting myself. Goo2you (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- But the examples are totally random and irrelevant. I would put:
"This label is used by creationists to suggest that evolution is an ideology like Creationism and other "-isms"." Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)