![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Creation and evolution in public education. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Creation and evolution in public education at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Priority 3
|
A summary of this article appears in politics of creationism. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 August 2020 and 5 September 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Depaek.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There may be some convention on this so I haven't done an edit, but why, if Turkey is in Europe, is Russia in Asia? Especially considering that the only piece in the Russia section is about St. Petersburg... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.124.48 ( talk) 19:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
An article was brought up in Talk:Objections to evolution. It speaks to evolutions acceptance among those educated / exposed to it. - Roy Boy 16:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This is only a blog, but there might be reliable sources out there. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20052007-501465.html Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, reverted by Orangemarlin, I agree that the Louisiana section warrants attention. While 75.50.99.94 removed the section for alleged POV issues, my concern is that the section has no citation and appears to be unsourced. I don't see a POV issue with the claim as written, so long as it is supported and appropriately channels the source's POV. If it's a state bill then surely it has been discussed by mainstream or otherwise notable sources. If no source can be identified, that section needs to be removed on grounds of original research, no matter the degree of its neutrality. If I find time, I will help look for one to use. John Shandy` • talk 05:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit which reverted an IP's addition of theistic evolution, I think there is confusion on part of Charlesdrakew. I don't think the IP was intending to give an example of a religion that accepts evolution, but was meaning to introduce theistic evolution because, as the article reads "While some religions do not have theological objections to the modern evolutionary synthesis as an explanation for the present form of life on Earth...", it is true that some religions (e.g. the Catholic Church, per Pope John Paul II#Evolution & Catholic Church and evolution) have accepted evolution by Darwinian natural selection. This would be a notable point to add to that paragraph, and wikilinking to theistic evolution as well would be appropriate. We can add the references from the articles I've mentioned here and cite them in this article. John Shandy` • talk 13:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The section Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#Russia appears to be a good bit out of date, I assume the lawsuit would be over by now. If someone can read russian it might be easier for them to find more up to the date sources (I couldn't find anything in English). IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent rewrite for the following reasons:
An expansion based upon the contents of these secondary sources would be useful. I would also recommend against using the acronym PACE in the section heading -- it has far to many different meanings to be particularly helpful. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
(Parenthetically, I would point out that I made very clear the need for "sufficient secondary-sourced material" in earlier discussion of this topic. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC) )
Rewrite to give emphasis to secondary sources. Do not include paper-pushing or opinions not found in reliable sources. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I would note that the only secondary coverage actually contained in the article to date is "the characterization of evolution as more than a hypothesis by the pope Benedict XVI". This section clearly is not currently
"based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", s required by policy.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P) 08:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I have raised these concerns on WP:RSN. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I would note that Darwinian evolution was regarded as too elitistly heditarian (survival of those with the best genes) by many communists, who favoured a more Lamarckian view of evolution. The most prominent example of this was Stalin's promotion of Lysenkoism. The views of the "east European deputies" are therefore misleading and should not be stated baldly as though factual. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
These are the opinions gleaned by a cursory read, and constitute my impressions IAW policy. My76Strat ( talk) 11:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I hope that Portillo is not assuming personal authority in matters concerning the intrinsic sense of serious articles. He has now twice arbitrarily deleted a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster article, first on the grounds that he had labelled it as garbage, apparently unread or uncomprehended or both, and then because he said it had nothing to do with this article. I have reverted both his deletions, the second time warning him that I shall report him if he repeats his action, and urging him to take it to this talk page instead. (I at least assumed no such authority as he did for his own assertions!)
What T's me off about this is not whether his view has any merit or not (I never wrote, nor to my memory contributed to the FSM article, nor yet linked it to this article, nor even was terribly interested in it as such), but the fact that though it is a serious article, seriously discussed, and seriously linked to in a serious context, Portillo assumed the right to scrap the link on no more substantial justification than his own unsupported and disputed insights. If Portillo reads this, I hope that he will respond here rather than edit warring, and makes some better points than blank assertions such as those accompanying his recent two deletions. JonRichfield ( talk) 12:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I post a couple of links about evolution education in different countries here for future use and to give other editors a chance to object if they consider them unreliable or undue, before I add any text to the article: http://harvard.academia.edu/EBurton/Papers/902459/Evolution_Education_in_Muslim_States_Iran_and_Saudi_Arabia_Compared http://www.labtimes.org/labtimes/issues/lt2009/lt01/lt_2009_01_28_29.pdf Sjö ( talk) 13:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
With the power that the Texas school board has to determine which books will likely enter into schools outside of Texas, shouldn't there be more said about the members current political stances. For example, "I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state" (David Bradley, Texas State Board of Education). - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?_r=0
Also, there seems to be no mention of the Dover trial. It could easily link to the existing page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.250.187 ( talk) 03:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Is creationism taught in public schools in Virginia? I am writing a paper and can't find any information on it. Football1607 ( talk) 14:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Football1607
See basically done discussion here Jytdog ( talk) 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Creation and evolution in public education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Why does the Life Timeline chart show Flowers as occurring more recently than Mammals? Shouldn't this be Primates? Musanim ( talk) 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Creation and evolution in public education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
So, it seems teaching evolution in Romania was quietly discontinued around 2006-07, shortly reintroduced for 2 semesters in more vague and general terms and then dropped again, at least according to the Romanian wiki [1] . It's also relevant, that even in the year it survived, it was seemingly taught only in upper school any more (people drop out earlier or go on to the second educational track in significant amounts so the effect is higher in RO than it would be in any other Western country).
I was not able to find any good source to confirm (googled the big news outlets looked for key terms in politician's tweets; repeated for key terms in Romanian, French, German -- nada. The two sources in the article seem "legit", no idea how well those sites monitor journalistic standards). Probably somebody actually has to go through the education ministry's (mostly offline?) archive to confirm when and what exactly was being taught. Who did separation of church and education ever work well for... /s LlllllllIl ( talk) 19:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I think Wikipedia may be lacking an important page, namely a page on efforts to include teaching the Bible in public schools in the USA. Here's the page of a representative who has put forth a bill in Florida to implement such classes: Kimberly Daniels. It is an interesting topic. In an ideal world, I would personally support having this kind of class, but my guess is that such classes would become preaching classes & an automatic A if you put in a little work (that's where my bias would lead me). Is there any page that I can add information about "The Bible in public education"? Geographyinitiative ( talk) 02:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Creation and evolution in public education. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Creation and evolution in public education at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Priority 3
|
A summary of this article appears in politics of creationism. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 August 2020 and 5 September 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Depaek.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There may be some convention on this so I haven't done an edit, but why, if Turkey is in Europe, is Russia in Asia? Especially considering that the only piece in the Russia section is about St. Petersburg... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.124.48 ( talk) 19:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
An article was brought up in Talk:Objections to evolution. It speaks to evolutions acceptance among those educated / exposed to it. - Roy Boy 16:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This is only a blog, but there might be reliable sources out there. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20052007-501465.html Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, reverted by Orangemarlin, I agree that the Louisiana section warrants attention. While 75.50.99.94 removed the section for alleged POV issues, my concern is that the section has no citation and appears to be unsourced. I don't see a POV issue with the claim as written, so long as it is supported and appropriately channels the source's POV. If it's a state bill then surely it has been discussed by mainstream or otherwise notable sources. If no source can be identified, that section needs to be removed on grounds of original research, no matter the degree of its neutrality. If I find time, I will help look for one to use. John Shandy` • talk 05:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit which reverted an IP's addition of theistic evolution, I think there is confusion on part of Charlesdrakew. I don't think the IP was intending to give an example of a religion that accepts evolution, but was meaning to introduce theistic evolution because, as the article reads "While some religions do not have theological objections to the modern evolutionary synthesis as an explanation for the present form of life on Earth...", it is true that some religions (e.g. the Catholic Church, per Pope John Paul II#Evolution & Catholic Church and evolution) have accepted evolution by Darwinian natural selection. This would be a notable point to add to that paragraph, and wikilinking to theistic evolution as well would be appropriate. We can add the references from the articles I've mentioned here and cite them in this article. John Shandy` • talk 13:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The section Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#Russia appears to be a good bit out of date, I assume the lawsuit would be over by now. If someone can read russian it might be easier for them to find more up to the date sources (I couldn't find anything in English). IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent rewrite for the following reasons:
An expansion based upon the contents of these secondary sources would be useful. I would also recommend against using the acronym PACE in the section heading -- it has far to many different meanings to be particularly helpful. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
(Parenthetically, I would point out that I made very clear the need for "sufficient secondary-sourced material" in earlier discussion of this topic. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC) )
Rewrite to give emphasis to secondary sources. Do not include paper-pushing or opinions not found in reliable sources. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I would note that the only secondary coverage actually contained in the article to date is "the characterization of evolution as more than a hypothesis by the pope Benedict XVI". This section clearly is not currently
"based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", s required by policy.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk(
P) 08:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I have raised these concerns on WP:RSN. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I would note that Darwinian evolution was regarded as too elitistly heditarian (survival of those with the best genes) by many communists, who favoured a more Lamarckian view of evolution. The most prominent example of this was Stalin's promotion of Lysenkoism. The views of the "east European deputies" are therefore misleading and should not be stated baldly as though factual. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
These are the opinions gleaned by a cursory read, and constitute my impressions IAW policy. My76Strat ( talk) 11:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I hope that Portillo is not assuming personal authority in matters concerning the intrinsic sense of serious articles. He has now twice arbitrarily deleted a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster article, first on the grounds that he had labelled it as garbage, apparently unread or uncomprehended or both, and then because he said it had nothing to do with this article. I have reverted both his deletions, the second time warning him that I shall report him if he repeats his action, and urging him to take it to this talk page instead. (I at least assumed no such authority as he did for his own assertions!)
What T's me off about this is not whether his view has any merit or not (I never wrote, nor to my memory contributed to the FSM article, nor yet linked it to this article, nor even was terribly interested in it as such), but the fact that though it is a serious article, seriously discussed, and seriously linked to in a serious context, Portillo assumed the right to scrap the link on no more substantial justification than his own unsupported and disputed insights. If Portillo reads this, I hope that he will respond here rather than edit warring, and makes some better points than blank assertions such as those accompanying his recent two deletions. JonRichfield ( talk) 12:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I post a couple of links about evolution education in different countries here for future use and to give other editors a chance to object if they consider them unreliable or undue, before I add any text to the article: http://harvard.academia.edu/EBurton/Papers/902459/Evolution_Education_in_Muslim_States_Iran_and_Saudi_Arabia_Compared http://www.labtimes.org/labtimes/issues/lt2009/lt01/lt_2009_01_28_29.pdf Sjö ( talk) 13:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
With the power that the Texas school board has to determine which books will likely enter into schools outside of Texas, shouldn't there be more said about the members current political stances. For example, "I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state" (David Bradley, Texas State Board of Education). - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?_r=0
Also, there seems to be no mention of the Dover trial. It could easily link to the existing page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.250.187 ( talk) 03:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Is creationism taught in public schools in Virginia? I am writing a paper and can't find any information on it. Football1607 ( talk) 14:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Football1607
See basically done discussion here Jytdog ( talk) 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Creation and evolution in public education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Why does the Life Timeline chart show Flowers as occurring more recently than Mammals? Shouldn't this be Primates? Musanim ( talk) 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Creation and evolution in public education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
So, it seems teaching evolution in Romania was quietly discontinued around 2006-07, shortly reintroduced for 2 semesters in more vague and general terms and then dropped again, at least according to the Romanian wiki [1] . It's also relevant, that even in the year it survived, it was seemingly taught only in upper school any more (people drop out earlier or go on to the second educational track in significant amounts so the effect is higher in RO than it would be in any other Western country).
I was not able to find any good source to confirm (googled the big news outlets looked for key terms in politician's tweets; repeated for key terms in Romanian, French, German -- nada. The two sources in the article seem "legit", no idea how well those sites monitor journalistic standards). Probably somebody actually has to go through the education ministry's (mostly offline?) archive to confirm when and what exactly was being taught. Who did separation of church and education ever work well for... /s LlllllllIl ( talk) 19:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I think Wikipedia may be lacking an important page, namely a page on efforts to include teaching the Bible in public schools in the USA. Here's the page of a representative who has put forth a bill in Florida to implement such classes: Kimberly Daniels. It is an interesting topic. In an ideal world, I would personally support having this kind of class, but my guess is that such classes would become preaching classes & an automatic A if you put in a little work (that's where my bias would lead me). Is there any page that I can add information about "The Bible in public education"? Geographyinitiative ( talk) 02:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)