![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi! I saw your edit on the talk page of Evolution, and, as it so happens I'm working on one of the main spin-offs of Evolution, Creation-evolution controversy , which has a highly inadequate section on the very point - affect of creationists on US education - that you feel strongly about, I was wondering if you'd care to help out? I'm afraid the whole thing needs work: it seems to have been written with a little too much attempts to be "balanced", and you know what that does. I'm ruthlessly removing that undue weight in favour of facts. Anyway, cheers! Adam Cuerden talk 09:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think this should be addressed someplace. It is a prominent feature of the debate, at least in the US, and probably other countries as well. Claiming that teaching children evolution harms them irreparably is one of the creationists greatest weapons. Of course, one hears the opposite charge from those who are in favor of teaching evolution. This is where the battle between the two camps becomes most pitched. I will look at that section.-- Filll 17:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that WP:NPA doesn't hold true on user talk pages. Oh, well. I believe you did ask someone to come and explain "the difference between" - even though it was said in jest you never know when you will be taken seriously. Speaking of seriously - don't you ever think about what happens when we walk out of here? standonbible Talk! 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The new proposed section and the new article on Fact and Theory has gone down in flames with a lot of anger, at least so far. I refuse to get into edit wars. I have answered the attacks as best as I can on the talk page at Talk:Evolution. I have also compiled a comparison of the various versions at Talk:FactandTheoryComparison. Take a look. What do you think?-- Filll 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
We went at it hammer and tongs over here if you want to take a look. Wow. I am amazed at how they do not want to write clearly and do not want to give up Gould or even explain Gould.-- Filll 00:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that to some of these people, Gould is like God writing on stone tablets. But to me, he is just a geologist who coauthored the punctuated equilibrium version of evolution. He was not even the sole author. He was not even the lead author. On the strength of that he obtained a tenured position in the Harvard Geology Department. Don't get me wrong, it is not a bad department. But in the Earth Sciences, Harvard is nothing to write home about. This is not some sort of incredible pinacle. And Geology is sort of a crappy subject. It is not even biology, and certainly not chemistry or physics or mathematics (in the pecking order of prestige). Other schools in the Earth Sciences are far more prestigious than Harvard. Then Gould stopped doing real work, and proceded to do some popularization. Which is ok. Someone has to do it. In addition, the text we are arguing about does not contradict what I am saying at all, only if they pick and choose among the quotes in that Gould article and discard certain things can they create the appearance of disagreement. Which they seem to want to do. And this article is not some sort of incredibly deep piece of writing. It was not peer reviewed. It has been reprinted a few times, that is true. It appears to contradict itself if you do not read it carefully and know something about the scientific meaning of the words he is using, even though he attempts to explain (and does a lousy job). The statements in this article are even contradicted to various degrees by the popular articles about a good 15 or 20 or more other scientists in evolution. It is just one article anyway. Why are we arguing about this one article? Even if it was peer-reviewed, having done a fair amount of peer-reviewing myself, I think that does not mean too much.-- Filll 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I would counsel patience. I am now compiling a much more complete list of scholarly references and citations for this. In particular, I believe I have a National Academy of Sciences official definition of the word "fact" that agrees completely with what you and I wrote. I am going to research this carefully and then revisit the issue. It is also now far clearer to me what is going on with these two editors. This section was written years ago. They have defended it for a long time. They feel some sort of ownership towards it, otherwise they would not bring that issue up so often. I also have found some of the text they suggested WAS plagiarized from some uncited source, but not Hawking. I read the Hawking chapter they claim their wording comes out of (uncited) and it does not. That is why they do not take me up on the challenge to compare the two. So frankly, they do not have a leg to stand on. That is why they are getting nasty. It is a sign that they are losing and know it. They hope to just scare us away with bluster and BS, but no real substance. On my background, I have 4 graduate degrees (including a phd in mathematical physics) and 2 undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics. I have never studied biology or evolution formally, but only tangentially. I have done years of research in physics and mathematics. I have also been caught repeatedly in debates with creationists who want to claim a variety of things:
And lots of similar things. One does not have to have very many discussions before one hears the same complaints about evolution over and over. There really are not very many arguments they have or use, and they have changed very little in the last 150 years or so. The most common and frequently used argument is the charge that "evolution is only a theory". So I have heard it plenty of times before. But since I am a working scientist, of course I have had to think very carefully over and over about what is a theory or a fact or data or hypothesis etc.-- Filll 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not start the article but I am thinking about it. I have thought about it and possibly an article about the hypocrisy of religious fundamentalists. Three Evangelical leaders who were ranting and raving about the evils of homosexuality have had to resign in 2006 for being homosexual. If one made a list of the Bakers, and Garner Ted Armstrong and so on, one could have a huge long list of fundamentalists who have embarassed themselves in various ways. Cobb County and about 5 or 6 other school boards lost in court when they wanted to put stickers or call for disclaimers etc. I am compiling the list with citations for my second attack on the "fact and theory" article. I am working on a revision now.-- Filll 18:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You've been adding this section to Creation and evolution in public education. It seems to me to be a worthwhile topic, but as posted, the opinions are uncited and appear to breach WP:NOR: if it's your own research, synthesis or opinion, Wikipedia can't accept it. What it needs is citations from reliable sources giving opinions which you can summarise. The concepts look familiar, and I'd hope you can find someone notable making the points to give verifiable references. .. dave souza, talk 22:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
NASA? what did NASA do?-- Filll 16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You will love them ! look here-- Filll 01:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I am wondering about an article about Falsifiability in evolution or an article about Comparison of evolution and creationism, or both, or something similar. The thing is, there needs to be some place where a reader can go to find out information to defend themselves or their viewpoints. If a creationist wants to attack evolution, he has access to literally hundreds or even thousands of websites and books and other resources. The websites are easy to use in particular; they just cut and paste. No thought required. Someone undecided who wants to investigate the situation will get buried in a flood of creationist nonsense. The science side is either too technical, too hard to read, or too hard to find. Even here on Wikipedia, as we have seen, there is not much material presenting the science side or countering the evolution side, compared to the creationist side. I did a quick search and I found a plethora of articles on Wikipedia about creationism, and very little that presents the evolution side, and counters the evolution arguments effectively. Even the little article you and I worked on about "theory and fact" ran into a lot of trouble because the evolution supporters really do not understand the nature of the threat (of course others helped as well and I do not mean to belittle their contributions). Evolution supporters think, well since no creationist has won a lawsuit, then there is no problem. They think, well only dopes would believe the creationist viewpoint, so there is no problem. They think, it is only the stupid and uneducated who believe in creationism, so no problem. They think, well someone else will do it, so no problem. They think, well I have more important things to do and it is beneath me to explain my science, so I am not going to bother. However, as pointed out in this article, only 12% of the public surveyed believe in evolution. The survey also points out that many people are confused. And evolution is just the first part of science that is going to be attacked; already the big bang has come under attack, the dynamo theory of the earth, plate tectonics, radioactive dating, thermodynamics, the doppler shift, the speed of light and all kinds of other areas. And if evolution falls, other areas in science will not be immune. Even medicine is not immune, because it might be viewed as going against "god's will". Very little of science or technology is not vulnerable. I am wondering if it would not be worth it to have more articles that organize the material that presents the science side in a coherent way, that is easily accessible, here on Wikipedia. That way someone like yourself would not be stuck in the same situation as you found yourself. Lawyers trying to build cases against creationists would have access to organized material that they could use to get up to speed quickly while building their cases. School boards and teachers would have access to material that they could use to defend themselves. Parents would have access to material to help them school their children. People would have access to material to help them defend themselves when they are attacked by creationists. People undecided or confused could get access to material to help them get a clearer picture of reality so they can make their own minds up. Just food for thought. Maybe we could even have an organized project here on Wikipedia.-- Filll 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the draft: Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft-- Filll 19:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Just so we do not overlap too much, I am working on a table like we did for gravity and evolution, but this time for evolution and creationism to compare them head to head.-- Filll 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know if you have seen [2] but I think you might enjoy it. For example. listen to [3]. -- Filll 17:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...-- Filll 15:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
A number of extended articles that address various creationist attacks be constructed, with themes such as
and so on. These articles would be stuffed with references and links to relevant websites. That way, someone from a lawfirm, or a school board, or a person trying to defend themselves against creationism can quickly find a suite of articles (we might even make a table listing them all) that organize this material and document the defense against creationism.
I suggest that the evolution article include only a very small controversy/confusion/misconception/defense section with summary sentences of the main points, and links to the extended articles. I think that it is better to have just minimal material rather than the confused mess that presently is in that article. Also, I wonder if having a lot of the material about the controversy in the evolution article does any good. Is it accessible? Does it attract creationist trolls? The evolution article is too long anyway. Better to farm this stuff out to other articles, since this stuff is not really science per se, but defensive material. Let the evolution article be about science mainly.
At least one summary article, maybe like the present controversy article (hopefully rewritten) be produced to organize and present the material in abbreviated form, as well as provide links to the extended articles.
Other articles such as "hypocrisy of creationists" (or "biblical errancy") are possible, demonstrating that literal belief in biblical accounts would require a stationary earth, a flat earth, a square earth, problems with tree rings and coral rings and layers of benthic sediments and dynamo theory and the value of pi and knowledge of teleomeres and optical refraction and Doppler shifts and a huge amount of other similar things. Basically, if one accepts the bible as literally true in all aspects, one has to deal with several hundred thousand documented mistakes and inconsistencies and then a huge volume of disagreements with scientific predictions, like the sphericity of the earth. Of course, what is common is that even biblical inerrancy advocates only believe PARTS of the bible are inerrant, and reject or interpret the parts they disagree with in whatever way they choose. This is what I call the hypocrisy. Either the bible is a scientific text, or it is not. One cannot claim that evolution is wrong but then ignore all the other conflicts with science in the bible or sweep them under the carpet. That sort of reasoning is pure hypocrisy.
Comments?-- Filll 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Evolution Award | |
The purple plush Tiktaalik is hereby awarded to Orangemarlin for efforts to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. Take care, dave souza, talk 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
And for today's question, is there such a thing as intelligent trolling? Or is it completely unintentional? .. dave souza, talk 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Uh oh. Did I write "intelligent trolling" somewhere? Thanks for the award. I'm going to treasure it :) Orangemarlin 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to challenge anyone to find me 5 creationist scientists that are currently prominent scientists. The requirements are:
File:Beating 2Da 2Ddead 2Dhorse.gif
especially in their lairs...
dave souza,
talk
21:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon - it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys [sic] back to its flock to claim victory. --Anonymous reviewer of Eugenie Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction.-- Filll 18:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
At least from what I have heard and read, it still carries quite a bit of weight. It is in the notes and so carries some force of law apparently. So it is not really toothless. We should get a good reference for that. It sounds like the typical crap out of Congress to me. How can they have a bill or amendment that does not pass but still carries the weight of law? But apparently, due to some convoluted lawyer trick, it can be enforced and is expected to be enforced- it is actually something that has me quite concerned. This seems dumb to me. We need a source on this.-- Filll 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I had heard the statement that the "Santorum Amendment" still carried some force of law even though it was not passed but only in ancillary discussion documents in multiple semi-reputable venues, I bought it. I know how there are a lot of funny twists and turns in the law that can make something that seems improbable actually be correct, so I thought this might be one of those cases. Then when I went to check (thanks to your prodding), I came up with several articles that asserted that this claim was just puffery. No substance at all. I was stunned. I had been taken in. Completely fooled. I feel gullible and naive and used and lied to. I think I had even heard this contention in documentaries on NPR and by lawyers discussing the issue on CSPAN (not that lawyers do not get paid to lie for a living, and not that there are no lies on CSPAN or NPR, but I expected more I guess).-- Filll 14:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you were right. There really is a heated discussion at that article. Religious based articles are difficult to make NPoV, as they are driven by Religious PoV's. As I'm an atheist, my views in that discussion probably wouldn't help things any. GoodDay 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
<here beginneth the lesson> "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate." So far so
WP:NPOV. "When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." This is where the motes and beams in eyes bit comes in: unfortunately adherents have limitless sensitivity to any possible slight to their cause, like describing other viewpoints as required. Which is where careful attention to the rest of the policy and to
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ is required, along with
WP:V and
WP:NOR to ensure that opinions are properly sourced, not the opinions of the editors. It tends to work out, even if some of the faithful go away muttering. ..
dave souza,
talk
23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the most popular smears that creationists use against evolution is that it is a form of religion, the religion known as "atheism, humanism, materialism, naturalism, satanism, communism, naziism, etc". And when you ask them what makes it a religion, it is that people pursue it vigorously and are interested in it. Just as a person who cleans a toilet well pursues it vigorously. I have had this conversation with many of them, and they assert in the boldest possible terms that cleaning a toilet or having a bowel movement in the morning is a religion. So this way, they can decide science is as religion, and therefore cannot be taught in schools. Smart huh?-- Filll 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[5]-- Filll 05:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi! I saw your edit on the talk page of Evolution, and, as it so happens I'm working on one of the main spin-offs of Evolution, Creation-evolution controversy , which has a highly inadequate section on the very point - affect of creationists on US education - that you feel strongly about, I was wondering if you'd care to help out? I'm afraid the whole thing needs work: it seems to have been written with a little too much attempts to be "balanced", and you know what that does. I'm ruthlessly removing that undue weight in favour of facts. Anyway, cheers! Adam Cuerden talk 09:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think this should be addressed someplace. It is a prominent feature of the debate, at least in the US, and probably other countries as well. Claiming that teaching children evolution harms them irreparably is one of the creationists greatest weapons. Of course, one hears the opposite charge from those who are in favor of teaching evolution. This is where the battle between the two camps becomes most pitched. I will look at that section.-- Filll 17:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that WP:NPA doesn't hold true on user talk pages. Oh, well. I believe you did ask someone to come and explain "the difference between" - even though it was said in jest you never know when you will be taken seriously. Speaking of seriously - don't you ever think about what happens when we walk out of here? standonbible Talk! 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The new proposed section and the new article on Fact and Theory has gone down in flames with a lot of anger, at least so far. I refuse to get into edit wars. I have answered the attacks as best as I can on the talk page at Talk:Evolution. I have also compiled a comparison of the various versions at Talk:FactandTheoryComparison. Take a look. What do you think?-- Filll 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
We went at it hammer and tongs over here if you want to take a look. Wow. I am amazed at how they do not want to write clearly and do not want to give up Gould or even explain Gould.-- Filll 00:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that to some of these people, Gould is like God writing on stone tablets. But to me, he is just a geologist who coauthored the punctuated equilibrium version of evolution. He was not even the sole author. He was not even the lead author. On the strength of that he obtained a tenured position in the Harvard Geology Department. Don't get me wrong, it is not a bad department. But in the Earth Sciences, Harvard is nothing to write home about. This is not some sort of incredible pinacle. And Geology is sort of a crappy subject. It is not even biology, and certainly not chemistry or physics or mathematics (in the pecking order of prestige). Other schools in the Earth Sciences are far more prestigious than Harvard. Then Gould stopped doing real work, and proceded to do some popularization. Which is ok. Someone has to do it. In addition, the text we are arguing about does not contradict what I am saying at all, only if they pick and choose among the quotes in that Gould article and discard certain things can they create the appearance of disagreement. Which they seem to want to do. And this article is not some sort of incredibly deep piece of writing. It was not peer reviewed. It has been reprinted a few times, that is true. It appears to contradict itself if you do not read it carefully and know something about the scientific meaning of the words he is using, even though he attempts to explain (and does a lousy job). The statements in this article are even contradicted to various degrees by the popular articles about a good 15 or 20 or more other scientists in evolution. It is just one article anyway. Why are we arguing about this one article? Even if it was peer-reviewed, having done a fair amount of peer-reviewing myself, I think that does not mean too much.-- Filll 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I would counsel patience. I am now compiling a much more complete list of scholarly references and citations for this. In particular, I believe I have a National Academy of Sciences official definition of the word "fact" that agrees completely with what you and I wrote. I am going to research this carefully and then revisit the issue. It is also now far clearer to me what is going on with these two editors. This section was written years ago. They have defended it for a long time. They feel some sort of ownership towards it, otherwise they would not bring that issue up so often. I also have found some of the text they suggested WAS plagiarized from some uncited source, but not Hawking. I read the Hawking chapter they claim their wording comes out of (uncited) and it does not. That is why they do not take me up on the challenge to compare the two. So frankly, they do not have a leg to stand on. That is why they are getting nasty. It is a sign that they are losing and know it. They hope to just scare us away with bluster and BS, but no real substance. On my background, I have 4 graduate degrees (including a phd in mathematical physics) and 2 undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics. I have never studied biology or evolution formally, but only tangentially. I have done years of research in physics and mathematics. I have also been caught repeatedly in debates with creationists who want to claim a variety of things:
And lots of similar things. One does not have to have very many discussions before one hears the same complaints about evolution over and over. There really are not very many arguments they have or use, and they have changed very little in the last 150 years or so. The most common and frequently used argument is the charge that "evolution is only a theory". So I have heard it plenty of times before. But since I am a working scientist, of course I have had to think very carefully over and over about what is a theory or a fact or data or hypothesis etc.-- Filll 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not start the article but I am thinking about it. I have thought about it and possibly an article about the hypocrisy of religious fundamentalists. Three Evangelical leaders who were ranting and raving about the evils of homosexuality have had to resign in 2006 for being homosexual. If one made a list of the Bakers, and Garner Ted Armstrong and so on, one could have a huge long list of fundamentalists who have embarassed themselves in various ways. Cobb County and about 5 or 6 other school boards lost in court when they wanted to put stickers or call for disclaimers etc. I am compiling the list with citations for my second attack on the "fact and theory" article. I am working on a revision now.-- Filll 18:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You've been adding this section to Creation and evolution in public education. It seems to me to be a worthwhile topic, but as posted, the opinions are uncited and appear to breach WP:NOR: if it's your own research, synthesis or opinion, Wikipedia can't accept it. What it needs is citations from reliable sources giving opinions which you can summarise. The concepts look familiar, and I'd hope you can find someone notable making the points to give verifiable references. .. dave souza, talk 22:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
NASA? what did NASA do?-- Filll 16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You will love them ! look here-- Filll 01:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I am wondering about an article about Falsifiability in evolution or an article about Comparison of evolution and creationism, or both, or something similar. The thing is, there needs to be some place where a reader can go to find out information to defend themselves or their viewpoints. If a creationist wants to attack evolution, he has access to literally hundreds or even thousands of websites and books and other resources. The websites are easy to use in particular; they just cut and paste. No thought required. Someone undecided who wants to investigate the situation will get buried in a flood of creationist nonsense. The science side is either too technical, too hard to read, or too hard to find. Even here on Wikipedia, as we have seen, there is not much material presenting the science side or countering the evolution side, compared to the creationist side. I did a quick search and I found a plethora of articles on Wikipedia about creationism, and very little that presents the evolution side, and counters the evolution arguments effectively. Even the little article you and I worked on about "theory and fact" ran into a lot of trouble because the evolution supporters really do not understand the nature of the threat (of course others helped as well and I do not mean to belittle their contributions). Evolution supporters think, well since no creationist has won a lawsuit, then there is no problem. They think, well only dopes would believe the creationist viewpoint, so there is no problem. They think, it is only the stupid and uneducated who believe in creationism, so no problem. They think, well someone else will do it, so no problem. They think, well I have more important things to do and it is beneath me to explain my science, so I am not going to bother. However, as pointed out in this article, only 12% of the public surveyed believe in evolution. The survey also points out that many people are confused. And evolution is just the first part of science that is going to be attacked; already the big bang has come under attack, the dynamo theory of the earth, plate tectonics, radioactive dating, thermodynamics, the doppler shift, the speed of light and all kinds of other areas. And if evolution falls, other areas in science will not be immune. Even medicine is not immune, because it might be viewed as going against "god's will". Very little of science or technology is not vulnerable. I am wondering if it would not be worth it to have more articles that organize the material that presents the science side in a coherent way, that is easily accessible, here on Wikipedia. That way someone like yourself would not be stuck in the same situation as you found yourself. Lawyers trying to build cases against creationists would have access to organized material that they could use to get up to speed quickly while building their cases. School boards and teachers would have access to material that they could use to defend themselves. Parents would have access to material to help them school their children. People would have access to material to help them defend themselves when they are attacked by creationists. People undecided or confused could get access to material to help them get a clearer picture of reality so they can make their own minds up. Just food for thought. Maybe we could even have an organized project here on Wikipedia.-- Filll 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the draft: Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft-- Filll 19:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Just so we do not overlap too much, I am working on a table like we did for gravity and evolution, but this time for evolution and creationism to compare them head to head.-- Filll 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not know if you have seen [2] but I think you might enjoy it. For example. listen to [3]. -- Filll 17:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...-- Filll 15:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
A number of extended articles that address various creationist attacks be constructed, with themes such as
and so on. These articles would be stuffed with references and links to relevant websites. That way, someone from a lawfirm, or a school board, or a person trying to defend themselves against creationism can quickly find a suite of articles (we might even make a table listing them all) that organize this material and document the defense against creationism.
I suggest that the evolution article include only a very small controversy/confusion/misconception/defense section with summary sentences of the main points, and links to the extended articles. I think that it is better to have just minimal material rather than the confused mess that presently is in that article. Also, I wonder if having a lot of the material about the controversy in the evolution article does any good. Is it accessible? Does it attract creationist trolls? The evolution article is too long anyway. Better to farm this stuff out to other articles, since this stuff is not really science per se, but defensive material. Let the evolution article be about science mainly.
At least one summary article, maybe like the present controversy article (hopefully rewritten) be produced to organize and present the material in abbreviated form, as well as provide links to the extended articles.
Other articles such as "hypocrisy of creationists" (or "biblical errancy") are possible, demonstrating that literal belief in biblical accounts would require a stationary earth, a flat earth, a square earth, problems with tree rings and coral rings and layers of benthic sediments and dynamo theory and the value of pi and knowledge of teleomeres and optical refraction and Doppler shifts and a huge amount of other similar things. Basically, if one accepts the bible as literally true in all aspects, one has to deal with several hundred thousand documented mistakes and inconsistencies and then a huge volume of disagreements with scientific predictions, like the sphericity of the earth. Of course, what is common is that even biblical inerrancy advocates only believe PARTS of the bible are inerrant, and reject or interpret the parts they disagree with in whatever way they choose. This is what I call the hypocrisy. Either the bible is a scientific text, or it is not. One cannot claim that evolution is wrong but then ignore all the other conflicts with science in the bible or sweep them under the carpet. That sort of reasoning is pure hypocrisy.
Comments?-- Filll 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Evolution Award | |
The purple plush Tiktaalik is hereby awarded to Orangemarlin for efforts to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. Take care, dave souza, talk 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
And for today's question, is there such a thing as intelligent trolling? Or is it completely unintentional? .. dave souza, talk 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Uh oh. Did I write "intelligent trolling" somewhere? Thanks for the award. I'm going to treasure it :) Orangemarlin 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to challenge anyone to find me 5 creationist scientists that are currently prominent scientists. The requirements are:
File:Beating 2Da 2Ddead 2Dhorse.gif
especially in their lairs...
dave souza,
talk
21:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon - it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys [sic] back to its flock to claim victory. --Anonymous reviewer of Eugenie Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction.-- Filll 18:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
At least from what I have heard and read, it still carries quite a bit of weight. It is in the notes and so carries some force of law apparently. So it is not really toothless. We should get a good reference for that. It sounds like the typical crap out of Congress to me. How can they have a bill or amendment that does not pass but still carries the weight of law? But apparently, due to some convoluted lawyer trick, it can be enforced and is expected to be enforced- it is actually something that has me quite concerned. This seems dumb to me. We need a source on this.-- Filll 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I had heard the statement that the "Santorum Amendment" still carried some force of law even though it was not passed but only in ancillary discussion documents in multiple semi-reputable venues, I bought it. I know how there are a lot of funny twists and turns in the law that can make something that seems improbable actually be correct, so I thought this might be one of those cases. Then when I went to check (thanks to your prodding), I came up with several articles that asserted that this claim was just puffery. No substance at all. I was stunned. I had been taken in. Completely fooled. I feel gullible and naive and used and lied to. I think I had even heard this contention in documentaries on NPR and by lawyers discussing the issue on CSPAN (not that lawyers do not get paid to lie for a living, and not that there are no lies on CSPAN or NPR, but I expected more I guess).-- Filll 14:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you were right. There really is a heated discussion at that article. Religious based articles are difficult to make NPoV, as they are driven by Religious PoV's. As I'm an atheist, my views in that discussion probably wouldn't help things any. GoodDay 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
<here beginneth the lesson> "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate." So far so
WP:NPOV. "When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." This is where the motes and beams in eyes bit comes in: unfortunately adherents have limitless sensitivity to any possible slight to their cause, like describing other viewpoints as required. Which is where careful attention to the rest of the policy and to
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ is required, along with
WP:V and
WP:NOR to ensure that opinions are properly sourced, not the opinions of the editors. It tends to work out, even if some of the faithful go away muttering. ..
dave souza,
talk
23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the most popular smears that creationists use against evolution is that it is a form of religion, the religion known as "atheism, humanism, materialism, naturalism, satanism, communism, naziism, etc". And when you ask them what makes it a religion, it is that people pursue it vigorously and are interested in it. Just as a person who cleans a toilet well pursues it vigorously. I have had this conversation with many of them, and they assert in the boldest possible terms that cleaning a toilet or having a bowel movement in the morning is a religion. So this way, they can decide science is as religion, and therefore cannot be taught in schools. Smart huh?-- Filll 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[5]-- Filll 05:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)