This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cut from article:
The central issue of the essay is the role of creation and evolution in public education in the United States. The essay is aimed at the intelligent lay reader who has religious feelings, and is unsure of the validity of biological evolution.
I just read the essay, and I didn't see any mention of the U.S. *or* public education. Did I skim it too fast?
I grasped rather that the central issue of the essay is that evolution can take place without the supernatural intervention of God. This is the most common claim made by pro-evolutionists and was by no means hard to find in the essay. Uncle Ed 16:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
The entire point of this essay (according to the author, that is) is that Creationism and Evolution can peacefully coexist. I fail to see how that classifies it as anti-creationist. I'm not trying to push any sort of agenda, so if you want to leave it incorrectly categorized, then go for it. the1physicist 02:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Should these quotes be transferred to wikiquote? 134.83.1.225 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The following made little sense to me:
I've rephrased it, taking the inference that Dawkins is being cited because of his support for atheism rather than theistic evolution, though I don't know if he has actually cited or used the phrase. Note that universal Darwinism is a redirect to Darwinism, and seems to be a term associated with Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea rather than Dawkins. .. dave souza, talk 09:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A little factual beckground:
As I consider the unbalanced opinion? warning inserted by me sufficiently well motivated as not to be removed out of hand without prior discussion, and anyway certainly not with such non-existent motivation as the one non-provided by User Guettarda, not only I am going to reintroduce a.m. warning, but I am going to append a: {{ POV-section}} at the top of the whole section The phrase of main article Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.
Also, the present is a formal warning to User Guettarda, or whoever may be concerned, under Wikipedia:Edit war prolicy WP:EW not to try and engage in any further "counter-revision", without prior discussion on this page and section.
Thank you for the fair play. Miguel de Servet ( talk) 09:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"The phrase " creationism or its variant called intelligent design" is obviously biased, because it takes it for granted that ID advocates are nothing but CS advocates in disguise" - this is well supported by academic scholarship and it has been established by a court court. If you don't know what you're talking about, you should ask for help. Don't tag an article simply because you are confused. Guettarda ( talk) 14:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
With regards to your WP:EW warning about "counter-reversions" - I explained my revert. You have yet to explain why you would rather tag a page than educate yourself about the subject. Guettarda ( talk) 14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The article referenced at PBS has numerous transcription errors; I found only one in the PDF. I recommend the PBS reference be eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.56.37 ( talk) 03:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
A series of recent edits [1] [2] [3] have added Citation Needed tags to the article, without making clear what claims in the text need citations. As I read the concerned paragraph (I was responsible for much of the paragraph's present form), all the claims in the paragraph draw from the text of Dobzhansky's short article and, in accordance with WP:DUPCITES, combining such citations to a single source "is the best practice on Wikipedia". -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 02:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cut from article:
The central issue of the essay is the role of creation and evolution in public education in the United States. The essay is aimed at the intelligent lay reader who has religious feelings, and is unsure of the validity of biological evolution.
I just read the essay, and I didn't see any mention of the U.S. *or* public education. Did I skim it too fast?
I grasped rather that the central issue of the essay is that evolution can take place without the supernatural intervention of God. This is the most common claim made by pro-evolutionists and was by no means hard to find in the essay. Uncle Ed 16:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
The entire point of this essay (according to the author, that is) is that Creationism and Evolution can peacefully coexist. I fail to see how that classifies it as anti-creationist. I'm not trying to push any sort of agenda, so if you want to leave it incorrectly categorized, then go for it. the1physicist 02:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Should these quotes be transferred to wikiquote? 134.83.1.225 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The following made little sense to me:
I've rephrased it, taking the inference that Dawkins is being cited because of his support for atheism rather than theistic evolution, though I don't know if he has actually cited or used the phrase. Note that universal Darwinism is a redirect to Darwinism, and seems to be a term associated with Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea rather than Dawkins. .. dave souza, talk 09:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A little factual beckground:
As I consider the unbalanced opinion? warning inserted by me sufficiently well motivated as not to be removed out of hand without prior discussion, and anyway certainly not with such non-existent motivation as the one non-provided by User Guettarda, not only I am going to reintroduce a.m. warning, but I am going to append a: {{ POV-section}} at the top of the whole section The phrase of main article Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.
Also, the present is a formal warning to User Guettarda, or whoever may be concerned, under Wikipedia:Edit war prolicy WP:EW not to try and engage in any further "counter-revision", without prior discussion on this page and section.
Thank you for the fair play. Miguel de Servet ( talk) 09:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"The phrase " creationism or its variant called intelligent design" is obviously biased, because it takes it for granted that ID advocates are nothing but CS advocates in disguise" - this is well supported by academic scholarship and it has been established by a court court. If you don't know what you're talking about, you should ask for help. Don't tag an article simply because you are confused. Guettarda ( talk) 14:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
With regards to your WP:EW warning about "counter-reversions" - I explained my revert. You have yet to explain why you would rather tag a page than educate yourself about the subject. Guettarda ( talk) 14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The article referenced at PBS has numerous transcription errors; I found only one in the PDF. I recommend the PBS reference be eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.56.37 ( talk) 03:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
A series of recent edits [1] [2] [3] have added Citation Needed tags to the article, without making clear what claims in the text need citations. As I read the concerned paragraph (I was responsible for much of the paragraph's present form), all the claims in the paragraph draw from the text of Dobzhansky's short article and, in accordance with WP:DUPCITES, combining such citations to a single source "is the best practice on Wikipedia". -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 02:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)