text:
Talk:Evolution/Archive 3

Archive of September-December 2004.

Dawkins, Dennett et al.
I think Richard Dawkins should be re-inserted into the list of evolutionary biologist. He has done plenty of serious original work, and has done research in the past, even if he sticks to writing books these days. In particular The Extended Phenotype expounded an original idea of his. I also believe that he may be responsible for the idea that the gene is the essential unit of selection, see The Selfish Gene. Also, his role as perhaps the most promonent promoter and explainer of evolution to the general public should be noted on this page. I won't make the changes myself, as I notice that he has already been removed, and I don't want to get into an edit war. I think a more hardcore wikipedian should consider it though.

 * Please try to suffix your comments with four tildes in a row so we know who wrote the comments. I re-added the commented out researchers and altered the previous sentence to read "Notable contributors to evolutionary biology theory include:" so that all people listed are appropriate. Adraeus 20:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I do dispute Daniel Dennett being called an evolutionary biology researcher because his primary work is in the philosophy of science. Oh, and Richard Dawkins does publish original material. Anyway, both are appropriately listed. Adraeus 20:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I have separated out Dennett and Pinker into a section on popularizers which should help address concerns. Although Dawkins falls somewhat into both camps, (in fact he is more well-known as a popularizer than for peer-reviewed papers in evolutionary biology), on balance he should probably be left in the evolutionary biology section,  because he is a zoologist by training and his forceful exposition of his ideas have had a good deal of impact within the field itself. --Lexor|Talk 02:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to change 'Notable popularisers of evolution whose primary research isn't within evolutionary biology include:' to 'Notable popularisers of evolution:' and include Dawkins (and maybe some others) in both lists. I think the 2 lists will have different audiences, it does not make sense to hide a populariser in a list addressing a more technical audience.

Evolution & religion
Do we really need this section as it is? Moreover, creationism (as well as intelligent design and evolutionary creationism) is not a religion nor is it a theory. It's a belief system. I say let's leave creationism to the creationism entry writers. People who visit this wiki page intend to learn about evolution not creationism. If they wanted to learn about creationism, they should go to that wiki page. I think it is more appropriate to entitle this section "Opponents of evolution" and link-list opponents of evolution. Adraeus 06:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

 * <>

I am curious what part of your above edit you would call 1) "minor" and what part of your above edit you would call 2) Neutral Point of View. A reference for the statistics implied in the above sentence might help. :) I personally agree with the partisan attack in the above sentence, (Bravo and cheers!), but I do believe that it must leave the Wikipedia page.  ---Rednblu 07:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Objectively, religionists claim evolution is a lie. It may not be politically correct, however, it is the blunt truth and it is NPOV in that context. A lie is a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth. Those like creationists do not merely disagree with evolutionary theory but they claim it is untrue because their "God" created everything, etc. I don't know if there's a credible organization that polls hatred; thus, I'm unaware of any statistics that support the assertion that "religious conservatives" believe evolutionary theory is a competing a religion. However, from observation of the general attitude of "religious conservatives" towards evolution, that assertion appears to be substantiated. I've read of Gallup polls that concern creationistic, theistic, and atheistic views of humankind, but I've been unable to verify the existence of that data.

Evolution and the Law:“A Death Struggle Between Two Civilizations”

Gallup polls (1982-1999) addressing views of Americans on creation, evolution, theism, and atheism

Adraeus 21:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--- A page called evolutionism was created by a group of people. I personally see that page as a deliberate attempt to claim Evolution is just a belief not a scientific theory. It lacks essential content other than claiming evolution is just a belief, so I have sent it to the Votes for deletion page. If you would like to vote and or comment on this, please follow the link from the evolutionism page. CheeseDreams 20:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Progressive
I don't want to get into a huge argument over this because it's just not that important, BUT. Gould theorizes that major transitions between genera (or the creation of radically different genera) happen sporadically. This is well and good and maybe even true. However, it is incontestable that evolution occurs in general as a continuous process. It doesn't always have dramatic phenotypic effects, but it IS always occurring. This is wholly compatible with Gould's thesis and he would have agreed 100%. Punctuated equilibrium is meant to describe "macroevolution"; minute changes in gene frequency and the introduction of new alleles occurs continuously; thus, the word progressive (i.e. gradual) is appropriate. Graft 18:44, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, but should not punctuated speciation and macroevolution on geological timescales also fall under the rubric of evolution? if you only allow progressive evolution, then you preclude those concepts.  I mean sure, in many usages, it is a progressive process, but in some cases (or on some scales) it is not.  so we can't use the word to define evolution, at least not without qualification, right? -Lethe | Talk

I don't think that progressive is at all appropriate, since it seems to indicate a movement towards a goal. It is better without it. Noisy | Talk 19:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Right. While "progressive" does refer some sort of change, its definition refers to some sort of goal. Since Wikipedia is not in the business of publishing original research, it's best to assume there's no intelligence, aside from us, that gives evolution momentum towards a goal. I don't think evolution has always made things better so "progress" and "advancement" are inappropriate descriptions of evolution's nature. Evolution is haphazard which is a provisional truth unknown to proponents of Creationism/Intelligent Design. See definition. Adraeus 20:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The sense in which it's being used is "continually in progress", i.e. "in motion", but I see your point. Graft 21:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The word "gradual" seems sufficient to cover the intended meaning without the undesirable connotation of goal-oriented, not to mention the connotation of "good" associated with "progressive.SMesser 14:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe in this context the word "accumulative" or "compouded" would be better? I understand objections to the word "progress," especially sinc emany people -- some scientists in the 1800s, many laypeople today -- identify "evolution" with a very crude and mistaken notion of "progress." Slrubenstein

 * Compounded or accumulative - I dunno. There's no real aggregation going on when you have, say, single-base substitutions. It's just movement from one state to another. Over time evolution can be said to have resulted in an aggregation of complexity, but to some degree it's also meant huge periods of loss of complexity (e.g. mass extinctions like the one following arrival of homo sapiens). I don't like 'gradual' much, either, since it implies a plodding, regular pace that may not be appropriate. I think it's going to be difficult to find one adjective that's appropriate here; maybe it's best left alone? Graft 18:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are the creationists' objections to the evidence that humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees?
I cut a paragraph from the Evolution section. The immediately preceding sentence read: "Some of those who reject the scientific theory of evolution have proffered what they believe to be physical proof of the impossibility of macroevolution in particular; this viewpoint does not bar the idea of microevolution."

--- Begin paragraph for discussion container ---

To understand the basis for this object, consider evolution's claim that humans evolved from the same mater as all other living life (and are therefore not special), which conflicts with the christian bible's claim that humans were designed as the rulers of the Earth. This is similar to the problem posed by the copernican model of the solar system as opposed to the Geocentric universe which has the Earth in the center of the universe (as the pope mainteind it was).

--- End paragraph for discussion container --- ---Rednblu | Talk 23:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph does not seem to me to expand on the idea in the preceding sentence of "physical proof of the impossibility of macroevolution." Instead, this paragraph seems to object to evolution because it does not put humans "as the rulers of the earth."

Consequently, this paragraph does not seem to me to belong either in this section or on this page. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Answering this section's question, visit Talk.Origins and start reading. Adraeus 03:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it builds on this, "Literal, or authoritative, interpretation of scripture demands that a supreme supernatural being directly created humans and other animals as separate species." Basically I was trying to flesh out that idea an put it in the context of other such problems (the copernican model for the solar system). I'm suprised it's contraversial, and I don't understand the objection. Please restate it for me. Pdbailey 15:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

So is that paragraph above supposed to say something like the following?
 * Those who accept scripture as the ultimate authority on the role of humans in the universe reject evolution whether or not there is physical proof that evolution is fact--because evolution does not make humans the rulers of the earth that scripture plainly makes them. ---Rednblu | Talk 16:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm really more interested in the historical comparison to copernicus. Which is to say, the Catholic church's initial rejection of this theory because it had the Earth not being the center of the universe. I think this is a clear comparison and offers some insight into the topic at hand. Pdbailey 17:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Sorry. It might help if you would cite to a published scholar who uses the "historical comparison to Copernicus" to explain the controversy between Evolution and religion. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Okay, Andrew Dickson White, "The Warfare of Science" 1874. Reviewed in, "Beyond War and Peace: A reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science" by David C. Lindbert and Ronald L. Numbers. Borrowing from Lindbert and Numbers, White hypothesizes that religion slowed scientific progress. While his argument is far more complicated and nuanced than this, but recall that Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin were all persicuted by the church for their writings and actions. I'm still having a hard time understanding your objection, would you mind stating it for me? Pdbailey 19:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of the debate between scientists and creationists, however interesting, belongs in a different article. I think this article should note religious opposition as well as opposition from a smull number of scientists influenced by religion, and provide a link. And otherwise, stick to expounding research on evolution. Slrubenstein

 * I think the sociologicla history of the theory and the political strife it's author had to endure is of profound interest. This issue simply has a sociolgical aspect to it as well, and I don't know of a better place to document it.Pdbailey 20:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

What Mr. Rubenstein said above rings true for me--the "sociological aspect" of "religion slowing scientific progress" would make an interesting and useful Wikipedia article. But that discussion of "sociological aspect" should not appear in the Evolution page because the "sociological aspect" would detract from what Mr. Rubenstein, appropriately in my view, calls the "expounding research on evolution" clarity of the Evolution page as it is now. So that "sociological aspect," in my opinion, should go somewhere else. Let's see; where should that discussion of "sociological aspect" go? Hmmm. My immediate gut reaction is the following. --- Arguments made by Rednblu and Slrubenstein suggest that the following paragraph should be removed.
 * Let's look for the best name of the page where a "sociological aspect" would help Wikipedia readers understand the world, its history, and its potential for improvements.
 * Until we think of a name for the new page, or old page to augment, we should keep the discussion here on Talk:Evolution. We can cut it to an appropriate place later.  What do others think?   ---Rednblu | Talk 22:48, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * In the United States creationism has a much broader base than only Christian fundamentalists, who are a minority in the American population. A recent poll showed that over half of American voters supported the teaching of creationism in public schools.[1], and in some areas of the United States, creationists have occasionally elected a majority of the members of state school boards and changed rules to give equal time to their views in the science classroom.

Any thouhgs?Pdbailey 23:10, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes. Why discuss a religious matter that is only of local interest in the U.S. on a page about the the science of evolution?  If anything, it should be on a separate page about how evolution is treated in the U.S., when the rest of the world has minimal interest in trying to conflate religious matters with those of science.  Noisy | Talk 23:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I will let Mr. Rubenstein speak for himself in this matter. I do not agree with Mr. Bailey that Rednblu suggests that the second paragraph should be deleted. The current second paragraph of Evolution that begins "In the United States . . ." belongs on the Evolution page for the following reasons.
 * 1) Neutral point-of-view as a policy should permit no more than 10% of space on each page to dissenting documented scholarly points-of-view, condensed to one section, with links to detailed pages elsewhere.
 * 2) Here, as I read the section Evolution, the issue is whether or not the physical proof of "evolution" is convincing.  Apparently, within the United States, the physical proof of "evolution" does not convince the majority of those who vote.
 * 3) The details of "why" the physical proof is not convincing is detailed on the linked pages--which of course focuses on the particular difficulties that voters in the United States have in trying to understand the physical evidence for "evolution." ---Rednblu | Talk 00:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Rednblu, I've got a modification of the text you proposed:
 * When the theory was first proposed, the Cathoilc church rejected it. The church accpets scripture as the ultimate authority on the role of humans in the universe and therefore must reject evolution because evolution does not make humans the rulers of the earth that scripture plainly makes them. This rejection is similar to the rejection of the copernican model of the solar system which placed the Earth in orbit around the sun rather than the sun in orbit around the Earth, which when first proposed was rejected by the Cathoic church because of its conflict with scripture.
 * But this is more along the lines of conveying information--the motivation for the contraversy--than it is along the lines of propoganda--which you appear to view this section as space for. If you view it this way, it is clearly inline with the stated goals of the wikipedia, "to fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a neutral way." And, I'll concede the point.Pdbailey 00:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I think we agree. :)

In my opinion, it is our job on the Evolution page "to fairly present all views on the issue of evolution, attributing the various POVs to the adherents in a neutral way."

But I also think that your idea of presenting White's idea that "religion has slowed the progress of science" would merit a good paraphrase on some Wikipedia page. However, I don't see White's idea as being used by those who find the physical proof of "evolution" unconvincing. And certainly, I don't see molecular biologists using White's idea to develop the physical proof of "evolution." So in my opinion, White's idea should be on a page other than Evolution. Where should we put it?

I think we agree. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 02:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't want to beat a dead hoarse here, but take a look at copernican to see what happened on this far less emotionaly charged page Pdbailey 04:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * While I agree the comparison is accurate, I'm afraid the explicit comparison of creationism to a geocentric universe with a flat earth is NPOV and likely to be quite inflammatory. Such comparisons appeal to evolution's backers specifically because they paint religious detractors in a negative light.  I expect that those religious detractors find the comparisons insulting for the same reason, and would probably point instead to the (at-the-time-they-were-introduced) controversial ideas of quantum mechanics, special relativity.  Similarly, the article (and the talk page, for the sake of avoiding flame / edit wars) should avoid claiming that evolution's detractors are religious fundamaentalists.  Groups such as the [Discovery Institute|http://www.discovery.org] claim scientific footing for ID.  Such groups are careful to maintain at least the appearance of scientific formalism, citing peer-reviewed articles and using technical discussions (see ) despite open animosity from the mainstream academic community.  In addition, the correlation between support for religion and support for evolution may be explained either as religious fervor among creationists or as atheistic fervor among evolutionists.  Behe et al. are well-educated, intelligent individuals.  Blanket a priori assumptione rejections of their ideas and ad hominem attacks on their lay supporters does not help persuade those laymen that evolution is a viable theory.  Rather, it appears that the "evolutionists" refuse to listen to criticism - which supports the strategy of the ID camp.  In general, I support the current form of the article, although perhaps we should add an explicit reference like "(See creation-evolution controversy.)" at the end of the introduction.  The article can then go on to detail evolutionary theory without spending too much time on the argument.SMesser 17:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The idea that humans evolved from monkeys is as well supported as a castle built on sand. Heck, all proof that humans evolved from monkeys is either (a)manufactured, (b)misinterpreted, or (c)exaggerated. Find real evidence to refute this and i will take back my comment. littoaznelf

Revert to Most Scientists Estimate?
Hello,

The most recent revision to the Evolution article replaces the sentence "Most scientists estimate the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old." with "Some scientists estimate..." This revision is misleading since it de-emphasizes the overwhelming dominance of the majority opinion. I suggest therefore that the article be reverted.

I'm a Ph.D. physicist and a member of the American Geophysical Union as well as the American Physical Society. EOS, AGU's monthly newsletter makes regular reference to events over a few million years in the past. Physics Today, the monthly newsmagazine for APS has less frequent articles on geology, but those that do appear there are well-researched and support. The 4.6 billion year estimate is well-supported by studies of radioactive decay, models of the Earth's, Moon's, and solar system's formation, observations of other stars, sedimentary and tectonic observations, as well as other data. Professional scientists do not consider the 4.6 billion year value to be controversial, and it is an estimate only in that some will prefer a value of 4.5 billion years. I go to at least two professional conferences per year and have yet to meet a scientist who questions this estimate.

See for example, for a specific statement on the age of the Earth in the context of evolution,  for a proposal to use our understanding of the Earth's age to search for life-bearing Earth-like extrasolar planets, and  for evidence for surface water 4.4 billion years in the past.

 * Yeah, we're aware. Unfortunately it often goes into turf wars over who controls these pages.  We're pretty firmly in control of this page, though others are sites of more conflict.  Creationists aren't scientists, so yes the use word scientists as opposed to "some scientists" or "most scientists".  The page is frequently under attack by anons. Dunc|☺ 00:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Morgan, Avery, etc.
I'm a bit confused writing this history stuff - it's hard to ken how people thought in the absence of knowledge you take for granted. Thomas Hunt Morgan did a lot of work in the 20s and 30s establishing that genes were carried by chromosomes. But Avery, et al, didn't prove that DNA was the transforming principle until 1943. How does this compute? Were people unaware that chromosomes were composed of DNA? That seems like it couldn't be true.

Lots of stuff still missing from this history bit. Graft 06:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History of life
I hate this "History of life" section. I want to trash it, or else severely trim it and move it down lower in the text. Right now, it's uglifying the beginning of the main body, which should launch into an explanation of evolution straightaway. Anyone want to defend it or second the motion? Graft 20:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with you, but I think we should see if whoever wrote it wants to defend it. Nevertheless, I think I can see some value in some of it.  Arguably, Darwin's theory would not have made sense until people began to believe that the Earth is really, really old.  The incredible age of the earth provides some context for the theory of evolution.  Also, perhaps someone put this in becuase many creationists continue to hold to a young earth theory -- and this section links to all those other scientists who think the Earth is old.  Well, I think these two points are relevant, but much of this section can be cut and I do hate the title. Slrubenstein

 * The order does seem a little awkward. What about moving / melding this "History of Life" section into the end of the "Ancestry of organisms" section, deleting the separate "History of Life" heading, and providing a lead-in along the lines of the following? "Since abiogenesis is rare and common descent is a slow process, evolution requires that Earth is very old.  This is compatible with geological evidence that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old.  (See Main article: Timeline of evolution." SMesser

 * Evolution does not require that the Earth is very old, because it is a process, and it can occur over relatively short periods of time (compared to geological time). A more explicit statement would be that the current state of biological diversity in the world is the product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution.  Maybe I'm nitpicking too much. --Ignignot 16:36, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * I gather that's what SMesser meant, at any rate. I think that proposal has merit - shall we run with it? Graft 17:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I think Ignignot is missing the point., True, microevolution does not require that the earth be old.  Arguable, macroevolution does.  Most important, I just don't think people -- including scientists -- would have accepted Darwin's theories had they already not been convinced that the work is much older than they had thought.  I have no problem with SMesser's idea -- it is worth a shot Slrubenstein

Evolution is not just science--according to NPOV policy
In my opinion, this edit is defective by any reasonable Wikipedia NPOV standard for at least two reasons: 1) deleting entirely a cited and documented relevant characterization of a POV about Evolution and 2) deleting a non-science POV from a page where a non-science POV is extremely relevant. What are your opinions on this matter? ---Rednblu | Talk 20:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I would say that the editor was correct to delete the paragraph in question. It is paragraph that is irrelevant on this page, and would belong on the Creationism page.  — Asbestos | Talk 20:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't NPOV require a short paragraph in Evolution citing to a significant POV on "Evolution"? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The paragraph doesn't do that. The fact that Americans elect creationists to school boards doesn't make this article more NPOV.   — Asbestos | Talk 21:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I see that someone deleted a second paragraph that made the "view on evolution" clearer. I will copy in the two paragraphs. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--- The paragraph in question

In the United States creationism has a much broader base than only Christian fundamentalists, who are a minority in the American population. A series of polls in 1999 suggested that over half of American voters supported the teaching of creationism in public schools alongside evolution., and in some areas of the United States, creationists have occasionally elected a majority of the state members of school boards and changed rules to give equal time to their views in the science classroom.

--- A second paragraph that should be combined with the above paragraph to get NPOV on the Evolution page

In some areas of the United States, creationists in the United States have tried to convince state governments to give equal time to their views in the classroom. The Oklahoma Textbook Commission recently adopted a disclaimer to be pasted into any textbook explaining evolution: "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." As of 2004, a very similar notice is being pasted into biology textbooks in Alabama as well.

---

Are you interested in working out a NPOV version of the two above paragraphs? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not certain that NPOV is the issue here. I'd say that this is a lengthy aside on the current state of affairs of those arguing for creationism. The article mentions some info on creationism, but that's not the primary aim of an article whose title is Evolution. Such information should go on any of the sites listed in the section, namely Creationism, Evolutionary creationism, or Creation vs. evolution debate (particularly the last one). This article is not about the debate between creationism and evolution, so lengthy asides on how many Americans believe in creationism, or how many people are elected to school boards, is not relevant to this page. Links to the debate are already in the section.   — Asbestos | Talk 21:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I have in the past lamented the fact that this page is overly focused on creationism at the expense of science, but neither do I think that the dispute over creationism should be confined to "creationism" pages. This article does discuss the social impacts of the biological theory (which were profound, world-shaking effects). Creationism is an important part of that and should not be excluded. It is not the primary aim of this article, but it is a secondary aim. Graft 21:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact that some people do not accept science does not change the fact that Evolution is science. The article should acknowledge that some people do not accept Evolution and provide a link, or links, to the appropriate pages. That is sufficient to provide NPOV. This is most definitely not a soapbox for religious beliefs. I am NOT saying there should be no mention of creationism. I just think, like Asbestos, that the two paragraphs above are too much and unnecessary. Look at it this way -- how much of the page on creationism should be devoted to explaining the theory of evolution? Slrubenstein

 * The paragraphs don't explain the theory of creationism, merely how the two theories are entangled. Asbestos proposes relegating social considerations to "creationism", thereby treating "evolution" as a purely scientific matter and "creationism" as mostly political. That is, the controversy exists only because of Them Pesky Creationists. I don't find that to be NPOV. These are two competing theories, regardless of whether they are two competing scientific theories. Both of them have enormous social currency (at least in the crackpot hyperreality that is the US). It would be wrong not to give a fair treatment of that controversy on both pages, or else to find some suitable middle ground. Graft 22:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "Entanglement" is the clearest NPOV statement that can be made about the religious POV on Evolution. In my opinion, the current Evolution page summaries of the religious POV on "Evolution" are factually wrong and statistically wrong--and that is only my secular take on the religious POV on "Evolution." The cited and documented summary of the entanglement however should qualify as NPOV and sufficient for the Evolution page in my opinion.  Details of what "creationism" is should be in the creationism Main articles, I would say.  After all, what else is there but "entanglement" between religion and evolution?  They have no science in common, and they have no religion in common.  What else other than "entanglement" could possibly be NPOV about the religious POV on "Evolution"?  Are we getting somewhere?  ---Rednblu | Talk 22:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I find Graft's characterization of what I was saying rather unfair. I specifically said that this would be preferably placed on the Creation vs. evolution debate page, not on creationist pages in general (the links I quoted were all those from the religion section). That said, I disagree with your statement that "the paragraphs merely explain how the two theories are entangled." This is not correct: the paragraphs do not address evolution at all. The paragraphs merely offer some factoids about how many people think that creationism should be taught in school. I don't have any problem with them, I just can't see what they would be doing on this page. The disclaimer by the Oklahoma Textbook Commission, on the other hand, is directly related to the evolution page, and I could see its inclusion.   — Asbestos | Talk 00:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I thought Graft was commenting fairly on the two paragraphs straight.  I can see your point though.  The first paragraph above does not extract from the cited poll the information about evolution.  I have edited these two paragraphs immediately following to represent fairly what I read in the cited polls.  What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 01:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite of the two paragraphs
--- The two paragraphs -- Version 2 -- Feel free to edit these to make them a NPOV representation of the citations

Opponents of creationism typically credit fundamentalists as the only group of people who hold creationism and not evolution to be true. However, in the United States the viewpoint has a much broader base than only Christian fundamentalists, who are a minority in the American population. A recent poll showed that over half of American voters thought that creationism was as useful an explanation for the diversity of life as was evolution. Hence, over half of American voters thought that considerable valuable time in biology classes should be devoted to teaching creationism either instead of or in addition to evolution in public schools.

In some areas of the United States, creationists in the United States have tried to convince state governments to give equal time to their views in the classroom. The Oklahoma Textbook Commission recently adopted a disclaimer to be pasted into any textbook explaining evolution: "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." As of 2004, a very similar notice is being pasted into biology textbooks in Alabama as well.

---

Additional discussion of the two paragraphs
In my opinion, the Evolution page should have a short statement about the religious POV on Evolution. Also in my opinion, empirical data is better than generalities. What those two paragraphs state is one significant cited and documented religious POV on Evolution without resorting to name-calling or uncited and undocumented generalities that say nothing--like the current paragraphs in the "Evolution and religion" section. Hence, in my opinion the current Evolution page is in violation of express NPOV policy. I will not put the "NPOV" violation tag there myself, but I will support anyone who does. Alternatively, we could work out a cited and documented statement of the religious POV on Evolution. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The social effect of evolutionary theory is great and needs a section, but lets keep it strictly neutral, i.e. not written by a creationists, though they may approve of /recommend improvements to the text. The above text was POV in a classic "helpfully clarifying you misconceptions" way which is not what we need; simply state that there are religious objections and detail the religious movement that advocates such beliefs. Dunc|☺ 23:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * By all Wikipedia standards of NPOV those two paragraphs were NPOV. With what specific set of words do you find fault?  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding about the npov. I can see how my comment could seem to be a problem. Despite that I still think the paragraphs should be removed. There are better ways of explaining evolution than by asking the American public what they think about this theory. Why not ask the Germans or Dutch? I've edited one of the paragraph to reflect this. PS I couldn't find a nice summary of the ISSP study about religion so I haven't added a link.Chardon
 * I personally have no problem with your comment. In fact, I personally agree with it. :))  But the Wikipedia NPOV challenge is to represent the POVs that the significant proponents hold.  So, it seems to me that to be accurate, the Evolution page should have a few paragraphs that state the religious POVs that fundamentally disagree with the idea of "evolution."  For the same NPOV reason, the Creationism page cannot just represent the pseudoscience views of the creationists.  Already 90% of the Evolution page is about the science POVs on "evolution."  That is fine.  So the above two paragraphs is about right for accurately depicting the religious POVs that think that evolution is no better an explanation than creationism for how people got here.  The German and Dutch religious POVs on "evolution" that you mention could easily be summed up in one sentence: "Religions outside the United States generally accept evolution as the origin of the diversity of life on earth."  The

current Evolution page does not accurately represent the religious POVs that think that evolution is no better than creationism at explaining the origin of species. Consequently, the Evolution page should have a NPOV violation tag on it. I will not put it there. But I will support anyone who does put it there. ---Rednblu | Talk 10:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Paragraph
The paragraph offered by Chardon,
 * In countries where the majority of people hold strong religious beliefs, creationism has a much broader appeal than in countries where the majority of people hold secular beliefs. A series of polls in the US in 1999 suggested that over half of American voters supported the teaching of creationism in public schools alongside evolution.

I think is NPOV and relevant. One of my main problems with the paragraphs offered by Rednblu was that they appeared to be defending against something, which he made clearer in the second draft. The sole purpose of the paragraphs proposed were to state that it's not just fundamentalists who believe in creationism. I don't think such a defensive stance is relevent to the article at hand. Chardon's proposal, on the other hand, is in the positive: there is a correlation between religious beliefs and the appeal of creationism. It would be good, though, to get cited evidence for this correlation. — Asbestos | Talk 10:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * defensive stance. Not at all.  Defensive stance against what?  .ôô.  The first paragraph describes the world outside the United States where, apparently, creationism is associated mainly with Christian fundamentalists.  But in the United States creationism does not correlate with Christian fundamentalists because most of the religious people who want creationism taught in public schools are not Christian fundamentalists.  We have to go with the empirical data, do we not? ---Rednblu | Talk 11:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It contains an appeal to the majority and obfuscates about the word creationism, which has a variety of possible meanings and not just as is often assumed, young Earth Creationism. It should be mentioned that creationism is a bigger movement in the US than elsewhere, but the US is not (contrary to the belief of some) the centre of the Universe. There are some non-partisan polls somewhere too. Creationists tend to ask loaded questions. Dunc|☺ 11:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Also, the evidence that you want to include is not evidence for the number of people that believe in creationism. It is evidence for the number of people who think creationism could be held alongside evolution in schools. Therefore it is not a response to the paragraph above it. And I stick by saying that the paragraph you want is taking an unwarranted defensive stance: it is, as Duncharris says, and appeal to majority, attempting to disprove an unmentioned idea that only Christian fundamentalists support creationism.   — Asbestos | Talk 11:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nope. You are both wrong in this case. :(( And I understand your emotional attachment!  This has nothing to do with Christian fundamentalists.  If you delete fundamentalists from the first paragraph, then you should delete that bad word also from the second paragraph. :)  And this has nothing to do with appeal to the majority.  For if you look again, there is not even a hint of a trace of an implied suggestion that the majority is right.  If anything within the context of this page, the implication is that the voting majority in America is dead wrong.  Can't you see the facts?  I will excuse you both somewhat in this case because I see that the link is down.  Immediately following are a couple of sample polls in the meantime.  Would you say that People for the American Way is non-partisan? 8))  ---Rednblu | Talk 14:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CREATIONISM

How set are your opinions on the issue of teaching either creationism or evolution in public schools? Is your mind completely made up, or is it possible you might change your mind at some point in the future?

People for the American Way

Mar, 2000

mind     mind       not is      can      sure made   change up     should teach evolution only       59%       37%        4% teach evolution and creationism       46        53         2 should teach creationism only       75        24         1

Based on Americans who believe public schools should: teach evolution only = 20%; teach evolution and creationism = 63%; teach creationism only = 16%.

2000

Universe: United States

From: People for the American Way Action Fund Research and Forecast, Inc.           301 East 57 Street New York, NY 10022 (212) 593-6424

Method: telephone

Sample size: 1500

CREATIONISM

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the origin and development of man: 1) God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. 2) Man has developed over millions of years from less-advanced forms of life, and God had no part in this process. 3) Man has developed over millions of years from less-advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.?

Gallup Poll

Nov 27, 1991

1991     1982 1)        God created       47%       44% 2)  millions of years         9         9 3)       help of God        40        38      other/don't know         4         9

1991

Universe: United States

From: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research P.O. Box 440 Storrs, CT 06268-0440 (203) 486-4440

Method: telephone

Sample size: 1005

Reproduced with permission © 1991, Los Angeles Times Syndicate.

Fundamentalism
The issue is clouded by a whole pile of confusions. The first confusion was the introduction of the loaded term "fundamentalist." Contrary to the assumption that seems to be the majority on this page, fundamentalists are neither the majority of creationists, nor the leaders of the battle to keep creationism in the schools. While Christian fundamentalists are creationsists (mostly young earth creationists), the fundamentalist, if he were politically active, would be working to bar the teaching of evolution in the schools. The fundamentalists gave up that fight. Instead they home school their children or enroll them in a private school. The broader and more centrist base of religious viewpoints is to simply keep a place at the table for creationism. They would argue that blocking any reference to a creator tends to make science a god.

This is further confused by the lack of understanding of what a fundamentalist is. In most people's minds nowadays, fundamentalism is a negative concept, associated with terrorists and abortion clinic bombers, while in actuality Christian fundamentalists are law-abiding people who wish to keep their faith pure (perhaps to a fault). They have strengths and weaknesses, but, with a few exceptions, they are not leaders and coalition builders in the public policy arena. They tend to withdraw from these.

Another confusion is that creationism is usually understood (by both extremes) to only refer to young earth creationism, while creationism has many variants, including many creationists who accept evolution as a possible tool in God's hands.

This is further confused by a confusion of evolution, which is a secular, scientific theory; with evolutionism who claim to be secular but exhibits many religious characteristics. The religious evolutionists is at the opposite extreme of the spectrum of the Christian fundamentalist, but thinks in black-and-white, very much like a fundamentalist (other than being VERY politically active). The evolutionist religiously seeks to deny any vestige of creationism from ever being taught. ALL creationists, including those who accept the scientific theory of evolution have a problem with evolutionism.

A good example of evolutionism is the militantly evangelistic talk origins web site, which claims to be about evolution and claims to be secular. If you remove every element of propaganda from that web site, you don't have much left. Of course true believers cannot see how the science has been merged into a religion. One could also check out my talk page and find a fundamentalist evolutionist comment from John Woolsey, who leveled his guns without even knowing my viewpoint. Incidently, I've disagreed with Christian fundamentalists too, but never had one so discourteous or so utterly black-and-white. Pollinator 13:16, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * That's a good point, and the paragraphs that Rednblu wants to add seem to be specifically referring to this sentence in the Evolution and Religion section: "This view is commonly referred to as creationism, and continues to be defended by some religious groups, especially Christian fundamentalists."
 * If the statement is POV, then it should be removed. I'd be inclined to think that the sentence per se isn't POV, though I don't have footnotes that show that fundamentalists are among the most vocal in defending creationism (which is all the sentence is saying). I agree that the word "fundamentalist" brings up negative connotations, but, as you state above, such connotations are ungrounded. If there statement is correct, and, as you say, fundamentalist is a neutral term, then there should be no problem with it, and it shouldn't need two paragraphs rebutting it.   — Asbestos | Talk 14:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

my revert
fossilized organisms did not always "choose" where to die; probably, most of them made no choice. Slrubenstein

I did NOT mean to revert back to Fubar's last edit -- the person whose work I reverted had made two other edits I had no problem with. I hope s/he will see that I objected only to one part of the work s/he did! Slrubenstein

 * OK, it was meant ironically. I'll try rewrite.
 * Hmmm, now I see that the universal genetic code (as evidence for evolution) occurs in two places. Cleanup needed? -- 193.66.64.231

NPOV disputed
Scientific evidence and observation is subject to interpretation. Interpretation depends on philosophical methodology. For example, if one has naturalistic / materialistic philosophy and methodology, he or she interprets the observations as confirming the theory of evolution.

Apart from religious and philosophical debate there is scientific debate over whether the known facts and evidence supports (neo)darwinian evolution or not. This legitimate debate is clearly ignored in the article and arguments are presented as if they were conclusive while there exists a scientific debate over the issue (not to mention religious and philosophical). Therefore the article as a whole is not NPOV.

It is clear that people who believe in evolution want to state that the article is neutral and people who do not would probably like to rewrite it completely. To satisfy everyone I suggest using wording like "some scientists claim that ... while other ... " or similar. Removing claims like "it has replaced ... creationism" would also help making it NPOV. Including opposing views or "arguments against" (as they are included in the intelligent design article) would be a good NPOV factor, too.

 * There are already enough mentions of pseudoscientific objections, for example links to [creationism]] and Creation vs. evolution debate. There is no reason to give evolution deniers more room here than holocaust deniers get at the holocaust article, or flat earthers at the earth article. --Hob 15:34, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know what you are driving at. But maybe that's because you don't know what I was driving at, so I'll clarify. Creationists have the same standing, scientifically, as flat-earthers or holcaust deniers. Therefore, they should have the same influence on the evolution article as those groups have on those articles, namely very little. --Hob 11:50, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no reason to give evolution deniers more room here than holocaust deniers get at the holocaust article, or flat earthers at the earth article. Huh? Maybe those articles have changed since then. I think there was only one sentence to make the "flat earthers" happy, and the section satisfying the holocaust deniers was small compared to the whole article. Brianjd 08:37, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

 * I work in this field. There is no scientific debate. Period. No one who studies biology today would seriously question the fundamentals of Darwinian evolution, because it is far too well-founded, as anyone trained as a biologist should know. There is not a single scientific journal article that questions the fundamentals of evolution published within the last twenty years. Graft 16:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem is that people have been brought up to believe that NPOV means that more than one side of an issue should be given (I think that is stupid, but that's how it is). When a reporter writes something he or she has no choice but to put both sides in.  That means that in the public's eyes, despite the fact that 99% of the academic community might think that theory 1 is better than theory 2, theory 1 and theory 2 seem equally valid.  Evolution is one of the areas that is effected most heavily.  Newspapers don't want to step on people's toes, so they report both sides of evolution despite the fact that biologists don't even recognize creationism as a scientific side.  So the same people reading those newspapers (us) write articles in wikipedia, and make them like they've seen as factual reporting. --Ignignot 21:05, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * I understand this; my point is that there is literally NO scientific debate. 100% of the academic community thinks theory 1 is better. Therefore it is impossible to present a scientific debate on the subject as the anonymous editor desires. Graft 21:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * ...literally NO scientific debate. 100% of the academic community thinks theory 1 is better. How can you be so sure? Brianjd 08:37, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

 * 99.85% to be precise. See []. You could have found this out for yourself. - 130.233.136.69 Thu Dec 16 13:11:14 EET 2004

 * "...no scientific debate..." - sorry, but that is plainly false. See []. You could have found this out for yourself.--charon 14:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * What's described is NOT a scientific debate. Yes, some scientists believe evolution is incorrect (to whatever degree). This number is first of all very small, and second of all, their belief does not translate into scientific work. That is, there is no scientific evidence categorically disassembling the work that supports evolution, and no publications that are pointed challenges at its basic doctrines. Much hay is made of things like the Cambrian Explosion, which does provide a real problem for evolutionary theory and I don't think is fully solved. However, no one mounts a scientific argument in favor of design as a result of these holes, because they are not positive arguments for design. See, for example, an interview with Paul Chien here: Graft 17:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Those who would listen to what they have to say, wouldn't dismiss it as "not a scientific debate" unless they are faith-motivated or don't know much about science. Graft, you keep falling back to talking about creationists, design theorists, arguments of filling gaps and holes, but the current debate is about problems with the theory of evolution rather than some of the known alternatives to it.--charon 05:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * There's several alternative concepts here: there's the idea that scientific theories have gaps in them. This is true of nearly all scientific theories - they can explain the world to some extent, but they are all imperfect models, and there are some events which cannot be fully explained by these models. It's one thing to say that such imperfections exist, and that the model needs to be strengthened to explain these things. It's another to say the model is completely incorrect and needs to be categorically rejected. Evolution is not a theory in crisis. Like any other scientific model of the world, there are debates over myriad questions fleshing out the process of evolution, but no one is rejecting the basic theory (e.g. common descent from a single ancestor, the development of new features through natural selection). Yes, there is scientific debate within the field of evolutionary biology - it's not a dead science, and there are open questions. However, there is no scientific debate rejecting the theory of evolution in general. On the other hand, there are many people who disbelieve this theory - and some of them are scientists. But they do not attempt to present any scientific work rejecting the fundamentals of evolution. Finally, no scientific consensus is overturned without the existence of an alternative model with superior explanatory ability. Intelligent design or creationism could provide this alternative, but no one is advancing scientific arguments in favor of these alternative models. Graft 08:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * "...there is no scientific debate..." - you either lack googling skillz or you close your eyes purposefuly. Why do I read about those arguments every day? Why do sites like talkorigins keep posting articles like "refutation of a refutation of a response to a refutation of a..." and try to argue "scientifically" in them? If that's not "scientific debate" than what is?--charon 20:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * That's not a "scientific debate". For a more obvious example, consider someone who believes the sun goes around the earth. Someone can explain to him the scientific evidence supporting a heliocentric model, and they can have an argument about it (as happens all the time, e.g. in talk.origins). But this is not the same thing as saying there is a "scientific debate" going on; well-informed people consider the question long since settled based on ample evidence, and the only debate that arises is from those who deliberately misrepresent or are ignorant of that evidence. A "scientific debate" means there is disagreement amongst well-informed people who can present evidence to support their disparate positions. In the end all such disagreements should be resolved, so that we may have a coherent picture of the world. However, such a disagreement does not exist in the scientific community regarding evolution. The only disagreement comes from uninformed quarters; laymen making unsophisticated arguments about things they do not fully comprehend. This sounds insulting, I know, but it's the honest truth. Graft 22:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm, you didn't disprove what I already said, it still holds. You lack googling skillz or you close your eyes purposefully. I see the scientific debate, you don't. I claim it exists, you don't. I give you examples of the debate and you were unable to show specifically why that example is not a scientific debate in your opinion. "That's not a "scientific debate"" - what's not a scientific debate? I agree that simply saying "i don't believe" is not scientific debate. Presenting facts and scientific interpretations of facts is scientific debate. However, what we're talking here about is that you don't consider the arguments of any other side "scientific". How is that? They either do not present any arguments (which is not the case) or you dismissed their arguments without reading, assesing, evaluating and researching them (which is an unscientific approach) or you did and you responded, whis IS a scientifis debate unless you redefine what does "scientific" mean. So what is "scientific" (debate) according to you? If we can't agree on the basic terms, we each will keep repeating the same words ("there is not" vs. "here it is") and that will be unproductive.--charon 16:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, there are some people ("skeptics", for example CSICOP and the Skeptics' Society) who are concerned with the border between science and non-science and try to keep the public informed of what is science and what is not. They are familiar with the methods used by pseudoscientists, and they agree among themselves that creationism is pseudoscience. Other scientists think so too. There are people calling themselves scientists who do think creationism is science, but as far as I know all of them are creationists. Care to name a scientist who thinks creationism is science, but is not a creationist himself? --Hob Gadling 15:30, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice distinction, in my opinion. There should be some place in Wikipedia to preserve your last sentence.  Perhaps somewhere in the context of Creation vs. evolution debate but unfortunately that sentence would be "original research," would it not?  Maybe there should be a subpage of this TalkPage that would preserve only the best of the "original research" that appeared on this TalkPage.  8))  ---Rednblu | Talk 18:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * That information is rubbish. "...by one count..." Brianjd 12:07, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

 * I can be so sure because I work in the field, and I can tell you that no one has published work that disputes the fundamentals of evolution. I would be otherwise convinced if you could give me a single example of a scientist who works in biology (not a nuclear physicist who is giving her uninformed opinion) who has published papers attempting to prove that the current theory of evolution is fundamentally mistaken. No such papers exist, period. Behe is probably the sole example of a creationist biologist, and even he doesn't attempt to publish his stuff in peer-reviewed journals, because he knows his arguments are too weak to hold up to the scrutiny of his peers. If you wish to assert that there is a scientific debate, by all means - produce some evidence of that debate. Graft 17:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course there is no "scientific" debate when you discard opposing views as "non-scientific". But you're right at one point - general biologists don't dispute evolution. It's only when you actually dig those fossils and see for yourself that it's not what the textbook picrure showed. It's when you do your research in other areas as informatics, physics, biochemistry, methodology of science and others - only then you can see the problems with evolutionism. If the only argument for evolution is just the repetition of "authorities" statements (no matter how valid, accurate or up-to-date they are) then of course, debate and confronting the facts would be fatal to evolutionism. That's why it can't be allowed. charon

 * This is simply sophistry. Opposing views are discarded because they are poor science and don't hold up to examination, not because of dogmatism. Incidentally, the people who study evolution come from any number of fields - there's people trained in physics, computer science, mathematics, biophysics, etc. Also, I don't see why you wouldn't repeat "authorities" statements if they are valid, accurate and up-to-date. The strength of a debate relies on a credible challenge. There is no credible challenge to the modern theory of evolution. There's only half-baked arguments by people who have no idea what they're talking about. The "information theory" arguments, for example, are laughably ignorant. If they COULD overturn the scientific consensus through strength of argument, I guarantee you they would be published. Nature, for example, loves controversy and would rush to print any flashy bit of research that they thought would make a big splash. But no one is going to publish ill-thought-out trash that is just going to be laughed at. And that's what all the arguments against evolution amount to. Graft 18:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * То deem something "poor science" and "dont hold up to examination" you would have to examin it and confront it first. Remember: first study, second discard or accept, not vice versa. Dogmatism means no discussion and no criticism is allowed, it is only as we say and thats the fact. Sorry, but it is precisely the evolutionist community that doesn't want discussion and examination. How do you know the repeated authorities' statements are valid if you don't want to allow examining them? You employ circular reasoning several times in your post. --charon 00:48, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * This is what I'm saying; the ideas presented by most creationists, when examined by biologists, don't hold up to even mild criticism. If you're interested in actually exploring some of these issues, I'd be happy to talk in private on my talk-page or via email. However, I don't feel that they are worth debating on this page, for the reasons eloquently outlined by FOo below. Graft 19:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no scientific debate, but there is a social debate. That social debate is covered. The science is correct. The scientific community does not dispute evolution, only the ignorant, led by those blinded by faith and liars for Jesus, do. Dunc|☺ 22:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * thats a pretty awful thing to say. Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 23:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, it's a point recently made verbatim by Richard Dawkins last month on national public radio, and is a fair summation of the situation when one takes the time to learn the debate and the validity, basis and backgrounds of the various parties.--FeloniousMonk 23:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not awful to say it. The only awful thing is that it's true. These people who claim there is a real debate between science and rubbish such as old myths, curiously would not dispute the theory of general relativity. Evolution seems to be special in that regard, for some bizarre reason. Of course, if the religious fanatics are right, and the Genesis myth is true, then that means they need to show that most evidence gathered in such varied fields as astronomy, cosmology, geology, palaeonthology, archaeology, metheorology etc., to be completely false. Then they need to find evidence that support their "theory" and that has not happened - not even close. All the creationists have managed to do so far is to lie and decieve about science in order to show how false contemporary mainstream biology or cosmology are - in vain, obviously. Conclusion, there is as much debate between creationism and real biology, as there is debate between General Relativity and Intelligent Grappling. Maver1ck 08:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One problem that I see in this discussion is that too many of the pro-evolution editors are discussing evolution as if it is a fact and not a theory. That it is a theory is actually one of its strong points in my opinion. The various aspects of the theory are testable and falsifiable. Dispite over a century of study and research evolution by natural selection is still overwhelmingly the best explanation for the observable facts, and each new discovery (such as genetics or DNA) only helps explain evolution better and never helps to disprove it. There is a spirited and healthy debate over different aspects of evolution, and the importance of various mechanisms and levels of evolution, but that only shows the vigor of the theory. There are so many areas of biology from comparative anatomy to biochemistry where the only credible explanation for the way things are the way they are is evolution by natural selection. Still, there are suggestions that evolution doesn't explain absolutely everything (see Gaia theory (science) for example), but those suggestions are only seen as a supplement to evolution and never as a wholesale replacement for evolution. Even intelligent design doesn't try to deny that evolution occurs, but only tries to replace the The Blind Watchmaker of natural selection that is currently the most accepted mechanism for evolution with some sort of g-d analogue. But ID has problems as science because of a problem with falsifiability, so they spend most of their time trying to knock holes in natural selection. gK ¿? 04:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Theories of evolution, that is, scientific models of how evolution functions and produces the variation among species that we observe, are indeed theories. However, evolution is also a fact. That is to say, evolution does in fact occur; the fact of evolution is what the theories of evolution explore and describe.

 * This is not strange at all. The same is true of most matters that science studies -- for instance, gravity. Gravity is a fact. When one holds an object up off the ground and lets it go, it falls. When one has two massive bodies in space, they are attracted to one another. There are also theories of gravity -- scientific models of how gravity behaves, and by what means it operates. For instance, there is Newton's theory of gravity; there is also Einstein's; there are furthermore conjectures regarding quantum gravity and so forth.

 * Using the expression "the theory of evolution" to describe the propositions "Evolution occurs" or "The variation we observe in species is due to evolution" is misleading. These propositions are not theoretical in the sense of being incompletely established or unproven, any more than "Gravity occurs" and "Things fall down due to gravity, not due to intelligent grappling" are theoretical. They are, rather, simply facts; and their negations are simply falsehoods.

 * (A note: Einstein's theory of gravity disagrees with Newton's. Likewise, many physicists today dispute quantum gravity and other conjectures about the operation of gravity. However, it would be absurd to say that Einstein had disproven gravity, or that physicists disagree on whether gravity occurs. Likewise, the modern synthesis in many regards disagrees with Darwin. Likewise, many biologists today have disputes over the specific operations of evolution (e.g. genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium). However, it would be absurd to say that evolution has been disproven, or that biologists disagree on whether it occurs. Yet that is precisely the claim that evolution-deniers attempt to establish in their discussion of "the theory of evolution".)

 * The parallel continues. In Newton's time, the proposition that the planets and terrestrial objects fell under the same force was indeed at one point an unproven hypothesis. It turned out under further observation that this hypothesis represented fact. Theories of gravity such as Newton's described mathematically the force of gravity, and today conjectures such as quantum gravity attempt to describe its nature.

 * Likewise, once upon a time, the proposition that the variety of species is due to evolution was an unproven hypothesis. It is no longer; observations in taxonomy, molecular biology and biochemistry, geology, and other disciplines all confirm the truth of this proposition. In short, it has turned out that this hypothesis represented fact. Theories of evolution such as Darwin's and the modern synthesis describe features of the process of evolution (such as its rate); specific mechanisms by which evolution operates; and so forth.

 * In short, claims such as "evolution is a theory" represent a mountain of misunderstandings -- of what evolution is; of the observations that have been made; of what a theory is; and of how science operates. Such misunderstandings are (frequently quite cynically) exploited by the evolution-denial industry -- for both political and monetary profit. However, there is absolutely no reason to treat these misunderstandings as anything other than just that. --FOo 04:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, your analogy with "gravity is fact" is a good one. Let me explain.  If I were trying to get a bunch of skeptics to look at the reality in what I see as gravity, I think I would start with what those skeptics would agree is "fact."  That is, probably those skeptics would agree that observations of raw data in the Cavendish experiment are fact--for they could look with me through the telescope to see that m moves against a ruled background to get closer to M to twist the torsion cable more the closer I push M toward m.  And probably they would agree that my calculation of G is "fact."  After all I have just calculated a G value--and that would be just arithmetic. :))  And they might also agree that I had just weighed the earth because, knowing G and the distance of m from the center of the earth, then I could solve for the mass of the earth.  But could I then assert that "gravity is fact"?  If they would agree with me that gravity is fact, all would be fine.
 * But if they would not see from all of those calculations that "gravity is fact," it would be counter-productive for me to beat them over the head with "gravity is fact"--because surely what I would want to do is to get them to see for themselves. ---Rednblu | Talk 08:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You're all caught up arguing about language. Trying to find absolutely perfect definitions of fact and theory is impossible, and that's what you're arguing about.  For gravity, the facts are that when things are dropped they fall, observations of where astronomical bodies are at different times, etc.  The theory is something that describes a way to model these occurances and can predict future situations.  One theory is better than another if it predicts future situations better (more accurately, more flexably).  In evolution, the facts are the fossil record, observed microevolution, etc.  The theory is what describes how all of these facts happened.  From a scientific perspective, "God made it so" is a poor theory because you can't predict anything from it.  On the other hand, natural selection allows for predictions of future events - for example, we predict that using antibiotics too often creates antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.  That is evolution in action, and natural selection can properly predict it.  "God made it so" can't.  That's why the academic community does not regard creationism as a viable theory. --Ignignot 14:30, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing about language, my friend. :)) You are the one arguing about language. I am looking not to the language but to the effect of the language.  And I am merely pointing to the effect of the language when scientists attempt to get the creationists to deal with reality.  That is, for the scientists to beat the creationists over the head with "Evolution is fact" is counter-productive--especially since evolution is fact and there ain't no God and there ain't no ultimate truth to lay down the law on what evolution is.  You have just demonstrated the same religious fervor and ignorance that the creationists demonstrate; it is the religious fervor and ignorance that normally occurs when two alien cultures meet.  And merely because you have demonstrated that religious fervor and ignorance on the right side does not mitigate your religious fervor and ignorance.  And that is not an ad hominem.  I am merely observing and judging only the words that you wrote--which I am sure do not accurately portray the "hominem." :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 20:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, I just said how scientists look at evolution. I didn't say anything about my own views.  The "we" was meant as "we as a society." And if you want a link to an article, go read about Ludwig Wittgenstein for why you're getting caught up in an argument about how you define fact and theory.  --Ignignot 21:36, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * There are two important issues under discussion here: 1) how scientists look at evolution and 2) how scientists communicate evolution to the American creationists. :))  I understand that you, and apparently the defenders of the faith in the Evolution page, wish to ignore the second issue.  Commentators charon, gK, and others have made excellent pointers for all of us, but apparently we are determined to blow another opportunity to fix the blatant NPOV violations in the Evolution page. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * NPOV simply doesn't mean that falsehoods have to be represented equally with truths. The article Earth deals with the Earth as an oblate spheroid planet, not a flat plane or disc. The article Joseph Stalin deals with the man who actually did order killings and purges, not the heroic construct of '50s Soviet propaganda.

 * Wikipedia is not here to convince people who believe that Stalin was an innocent and virtuous hero that he was actually a thug and a killer; nor to convince people who deny evolution that it actually occurs. Wikipedia is not about propagandizing people to come around to some different viewpoint; it is about describing the facts neutrally. Those facts include many things that some people would like to deny: Earth is round; Stalin killed; evolution occurs; and so forth. We should make note of the fact that some people deny these facts; however, we are under no obligation to weasel on what the facts are. --FOo 02:48, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Quite. Wikipedia is about NPOV.  And NPOV consists of quoting, paraphrasing, and citing the arguments of the proponents on the dominant sides as indicated by polls of the general public.  The capitalism page serves to illustrate the NPOV principle.  That is, in addition to a clear explication of 1) how capitalists look at capitalism, the NPOV page must consider 2) how the capitalists communicate capitalism to China and Marxist countries.  Reporting merely the mainstream and scientific conclusions that "capitalism occurs" and "capitalism is fact" in the style of the Evolution page violates any reasonable interpretation of NPOV.  ---Rednblu | Talk 10:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not about NPOV. NPOV is a guideline or rule to be used in service to the goal of writing accurate articles. Neutrality is not a higher value than truth; it is a means to the end of writing truthfully. NPOV is a tool to help us do this -- a servant, not a master. It helps us cooperate on articles, and it helps us accurately represent disparate points of view when writing about them.

 * But neutrality is not a substitute for fact. There are many occasions where people dislike or seek to silence the truth -- for instance the many species of ideological historical revisionism, be they Marxist or antisemitic or Turkish-nationalist or American-nationialist. In these cases, it would not do at all for Wikipedia to be "neutral" between the facts and the ideological position that seeks to suppress those facts. How exactly can one propose a "neutral ground" between people like Serdar Argic who state that the Armenian genocide did not occur, and the fact that it did? You can (and must) state the fact that some people disbelieve in it, but to tell the truth you have to present their disbelief in a context which makes it not just "a POV" but a POV contrary to evidence, reason, and fact.

 * When there is a difference of opinion over values or definitions -- for instance, whether capitalism or socialism is better; whether a fetus is a life or a part of its mother's body; whether Nixon or Khrushchev was a worse person -- then neutrality must have free play. However, when a mathematician says that two plus two make four and an untrained child says it's twenty-two -- or when a person knowledgeable of geography says that Cambodia is located in Asia and an ignorant person says it is in Africa -- one person is indeed right and the other wrong. Some person's refusal to accept a fact, or ignorance of that fact, does not demote that fact from truth to "POV".

 * Just imagine what would happen if it did! Someone could go to the article on the Amanita virosa mushroom and recast as mere "POV" the statement that it is deadly poison -- and we would be obligated to respect their view and present it equally. Or to Abraham Lincoln and recast the fact that he was killed as a "POV", presenting the rival "POV" that he was turned into a vampire and today stalks the streets of Washington, DC. If neutrality comes before fact, then there is no reason not to present dangerous falsehoods and patent nonsense as equal to fact -- if someone believes something (or even as much as asserts it) that's a point of view and deserving of equal time!

 * (I must admit I am confused by your example of Capitalism. To say that "capitalism occurs" is not to favor the POV of "capitalists" (whatever those are -- the word has five or so disparate meanings). It is to say that the processes collectively called "capitalism" do go on in the universe -- for instance, people trade, labor, manage, and invest. It is not to ascribe value to these behaviors or their organization -- it is not to say that "capitalism is virtuous", just as to assert that evolution occurs does not imply that evolution is virtuous.) --FOo 18:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I understand. :)) You and I disagree about what truth is. I would assert that NPOV is truth.  That is, I would say that you do not have the truth on Capitalism until you have an adequate sampling of the POVs on capitalism.  If you have only what the capitalists, the experts on capitalism, say about capitalism, then you have a very false and NotTruth view of capitalism, in my opinion. :))  Similarly, I would say that you do not have the truth on Evolution until you have an adequate sampling of the POVs on evolution.  In contrast, you assert that you have the truth on evolution when you have only what the scientists say and exclude what the creationists say about evolution.  Now, personally I would agree with you from the standpoint of where I would place my cosmic bets, :)) but I also recognize that that is only my POV.  Unfortunately, the real truth about the Evolution page is that 60% of American voters assert that what is on that page is merely the biased politics of a religious prejudice.  And I understand that that is just an artifact of American politics.  You and I just disagree about what truth is.  I would assert that NPOV is truth; NPOV is not just a tool.  ---Rednblu | Talk 00:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I think I see where you're coming from. I agree fully that Wikipedia needs to describe all the relevant views on a subject. But it can't do so in a way that obstructs describing what the subject is.

 * (This has all become more than a little bit of a tangent from the issue above of how the expression "theory of evolution" is so frequently misleading, but I'll run with it.)

 * I think you might be mistaking my position when you say that I "assert that you have the truth on evolution when you have only what the scientists say and exclude what the creationists say about evolution." Of course we present what people who disbelieve in evolution say about it. But we don't let it get in the way of presenting, first and foremost, the facts about it.

 * This is nothing specific to articles on evolution, or even on science topics in general. In the article entitled Christianity, Wikipedia addresses what Christianity is, its history, doctrine, and so forth -- it doesn't rebut every point with the views of atheists, Muslims, Pagans, or Mithraists. (In fact, there's a whole separate article for relations between Christianity and other religions.) Likewise, in our article on Abortion, we deal foremost with what abortion is and then later get on into the bit about people thinking it's murder and should be illegal.

 * And yes, the views of biologists are probably going to turn out more relevant and merit more space on Evolution than those of "the general public" ... just as the views of people who have been to Paris are more relevant than those who haven't on that article, and the views of Christians and people who have studied Christianity are more relevant on Christianity than the views of people who think it's "that religion with the trees and the bunnies" or something. It's nothing specific to science -- in general, people who study a subject have more knowledge to contribute than people who do not. Knowledge is not egalitarian; given any subject, some people know more than others.

 * There is lots of space on Wikipedia. There's plenty of room to state the beliefs of creationists ... and of Raelians, Sufis, Scientologists, and people who think the universe was coughed up last Tuesday by the Great Pandimensional Llama. But evolution isn't creationism or Raelianism or Llamaism ... it's biology, and so we let the facts of biology talk here. --FOo 06:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Extremely POV. Please re-read Neutral_point_of_view. I quote, "In the Middle Ages, we "knew" that demons caused diseases. We now "know" otherwise." Since ~50% of United States citizens "know" evolution is false, I would like to see a much more serious critique of Evolution here in this article. This is absolutely necessary for NPOV. Don't water down the scientific-majority-opinion aspects of the article though. This article is very good from a scientific standpoint, but very poor from an NPOV standpoint. Connelly 05:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * So... what would this critique amount to? Graft 05:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I was exaggerating when I said "extremely POV" earlier. I came here looking for  Creation_vs._evolution_debate, assuming that Wikipedia would give a succinct overview of the best scientific and philosophical evidence for each side.  It's fine that this debate is presented in a different article.  However, I think there should be a link from Evolution to Creation_vs._evolution_debate, so others who come to Evolution looking for this information will be able to find it.  Sound reasonable?  Connelly 01:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

factual inaccuracy
The article contains contradictory statements: "[evolution] has replaced ... creationism ..." and that evolution is a scientific theory. Let me explain: 1.) if evolutionism (we're talking about the theory, not the process itself) replaced creationism, it follows that evolutionism and creationism are competing (or concurrent) theories (or philosophies). 2.) then it follows that evolutionism and creationism adress the same issues 3.) creationism adresses metaphysical (non-material) issues, the origin of the universe and others. 4.) therefore, evolutionism would also have to adress metaphysical issues 5.) therefore, evolutionism would be a philosophy rather than materialistic / scientific theory. conclusion: Either evolutionism is not a scientific theory or it has not replaced creationism. --charon 17:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Your general point is correct, but evolutionism is the body of teaching about Darwinian Evolution (DE), and not the theory itself. I back off from using the phrase 'theory of evolution' and use DE myself because people get very confused. Darwin's proposition was to do with the change in species due to natural selection, and not the origin of life itself, so putting 'evolution' which is commonly understood to stand for DE up against Creationism is incorrect (in my eyes).  Creationism as an explanation for the world around us has been replaced by myriad subjects such as cosmogony, cosmology, and physics: DE, when put alongside abiogenesis, merely replaces the third, fifth and sixth days of creation according to Genesis.  Noisy | Talk 12:10, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not so sure. This article is not about Darwinian Evolution, which is presumably a bunch of ideas written down by a guy named Darwin. It is about evolution, a process that takes place in populations of living organisms. It so happens that this guy Darwin wrote down an incomplete and dated description of some facets of the process of evolution. Today, we know a lot more about that process than anyone could in Darwin's day. Many of the ideas that make up our present knowledge are termed the modern synthesis.

 * It's a common enough mistake to confuse evolution (the process that Darwin studied, which is also studied by biologists today) with "evolutionism", an imaginary deification of Darwin's dated ideas. This confusion is a mistaking of the map for the territory. Darwin's writings, and today's modern synthesis, are descriptions of a process which goes on out in the world -- just as Einstein's and Newton's theories are descriptions of processes that happen out in the world. Gravity and evolution are not theories; they are the real-world processes which theories are written to describe. Einstein's description of gravity, and the modern description of evolution, are far more accurate than Newton's and Darwin's -- but they are still descriptions (maps), not the process being described.

 * The straw man of "evolutionism" is a symbol with no referent. Nobody believes in "evolutionism". People who don't know much about evolution (but write about it anyway) often write as if evolutionary biologists' profession amounted to defending Darwin's ideas against opposition. Nothing could be further from the truth. Modern biology is not a sequence of footnotes to Darwin; it is a massive and diverse body of work which has consistently described a vast number of living organisms and life processes, as well as the descent of modern species from ancient ones.

 * As for charon's "deduction" above, it is unsupported in each step. It is not clear that evolutionary science and creation theology do address the same issues; for instance, abiogenesis is beyond the scope of evolutionary science. Where modern "creationism" has attempted to address the same issues as evolution, it has failed rather badly, for instance in the popular and fallacious "argument from thermodynamics". Science in general does not address "metaphysical" issues, since it operates by observation and induction rather than armchair rationalism. And finally, much of what is today called "creationism" does not even predate evolutionary science (and thus cannot have been replaced by it) -- it is rather a reaction against evolutionary science. --FOo 20:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * "...it is unsupported...", "...it is not clear...": what do you mean it's unsupported? you just supported it :) my argument is an implication (if A then B) and is equivalent to (not-A or B) and that is also equivalent to (if not-B then not-A). It is clear that if creationism and evolutionism do not adress the same issues and if their scopes are different (which I believe is the case), then it follows that evolutionism could not replace creationism. --charon 10:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The straw man of "evolutionism" is a symbol with no referent. Nobody believes in "evolutionism". Ahem...it's time to get a grip, Fubar. Yes, there is such a thing as evolutionism. Evolution is a scientific theory, widely accepted by scientists, which makes a framework for biological science, but which cannot be regarded as "fact" unless one can time-travel. Evolutionism is a militant system of philosophy/religion which seeks to evangelise the world and squelch all dissent. It sees vast hoards of evil demon "fundamentalists" engaging in a conspiracy, despite the fact that fundamentalists are a tiny minority who tend to ignore the public issues and home school their children (talk about straw men!) You wanna see the militant, religious form of evolutionism? Just go to Talk Origins on the Internet. If you removed all straw men, bandwagon, guilt by association, appeal to fear, scapegoating, stereotyping, and other kinds of propaganda, there would not be much left of the web site. Pollinator 21:37, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * (Please don't post negative personal comments to talk pages, such as telling other editors to "get a grip".)

 * It sounds to me like you've had a hard time with some people you disagree with, on a different Web site. (I presume you're referring to talkorigins.org.) I'm sorry; I have to imagine that this makes this subject difficult for you. Please bear with me.

 * What I see on that site is a not a bunch of religious militants (that is, persons engaged in violence), but rather a collection of rather calmly and professionally-written articles on the subject of evolution, written from the standpoint of mainstream science. Many of them focus on correcting popular misconceptions about evolution, such as the idea that speciation has never been observed or that we'd need "time travel" to observe evolution happening.

 * The site also seems to be widely respected in the science and science education community, having been cited by some of the foremost journals, publications, and organizations in science. I understand that some religious believers do believe that science itself is a form of "militant religion", just as some radical feminists (supposedly!) believe that Newton's Principia Mathematica is a "rape manual", but that's a pretty odd way of looking at things. As it happens, I deal with scientists all the time (I work for a rather well-known research institution) and they're really not violent people on the whole. :) --FOo 22:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Nothing personal is intended, Fubar, except that you (and other evolutionists) have your eyes firmly shut to the abuses that have occurred in the name of evolution. Science should be strong enough to stand on its own, without the proponants of a theory scorning, ridiculing, and attempting to squelch any other viewpoint, or misusing science to make theological claims. Despite your condescension, it's not "difficult" for me (I've been shot at by fundamentalists from both the Christian side and the evolutionist side). I'm just trying to inject some common sense. The reason the both sides butt heads so vehemently is that their mind sets are so much alike. Can you see that? Pollinator 03:24, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Well ... no, I'm afraid I don't. Can you give some examples? I understand that you're telling us these people are awful and nasty, but you haven't so far pointed to any actual cases of them being awful and nasty. Again, all I see on the talkorigins.org Web site are some really well-researched papers and an encrustation of awards and citations from various well-reputed journals and associations and such. (I sure wish Wikipedia were as consistently well-written, as thoroughly footnoted and cross-referenced, and as stunningly spoken-for.) There's no sign of any militants shooting at anyone there. --FOo 05:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * clarification of terms: I refer to evulutionism simply as the belief that the existing species came from a common ancestor by a natural process (called evolution) and creationism as the belief that the world has a non-material creator (as a metaphysical cause). Some definitions of creationism refer to the creator as personal. The [evolution] article clearly does more than it is required to by the objectives of this encyclopedia, because it doesn't only describe what the theory of evolution or rather DE is about and what it claims, it actually defends evolutionism and presents statements that not everybody agrees on, which is a sign of non-NPOV. The NPOV policy is not to present everyones views as some have mistakenly said, it is to present the facts, not what some people think are facts or how the facts are interpreted by some people. (Also the genesis account could be interpreted in such a way that it does not contradict what DE claims.) Noisy : "Creationism as an explanation for the world around us has been replaced by myriad subjects such as..." - Creationism is a phiolosophy adressing metaphysical issues, so it could be "replaced" only by a similar philosophy, not by materialistic science. Creationism is not even challenged by cosmology. No science talks about non-material non-spatial and non-temporal spiritual beings or causes or their existence or nonexistence. If it would, it woud cease to be a science, it would be a nonfalsifiable philosophy.

The Macro v. Microevolution section says speciation has been observed, which is news to me. Can someone with knowledge add a link? Thanks. SMesser 20:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * FOo already put up a good link above in this discussion: siafu 21:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed a small phrase
I removed a small phrase from the controversial "Evolution and Religion" paragraph:

especially Christian fundamentalists.

The context was this:

This view is commonly referred to as creationism, and continues to be defended by some religious groups, especially Christian fundamentalists.

The reason I removed it is because few conservative evangelicals actually call themselves fundamentalists; they usually call themselves "evangelicals" or just "Christians". I think we should use a name these conservative protestents use for themselves, instead of putting a pejorative label on them. Samboy 08:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, the term wasn't originally pejorative. And does it matter what they call themselves? Let's not go PC... I think the original formulation was appropriate in the sense that it is one particular fundamentalist attitude, the wish to take the Bible literally, that makes these people want to defend creationism. - 193.66.64.231 Sun Dec 19 16:01:09 GMT+2 2004

 * The wording should probably be "religious fundamentalists" or "religious conservatives" since conservative Islamic leaders are just as anti-evolution as their protestant counterparts. I imagine that the same probably holds true for conservatives in most other major religions (such as conservative Hindus?). gK ¿? 15:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Fundamentalism does not denote literalist interpretation. Noone interprets every single verse literally. There can be fundamentalists with various methods of interpretation. The fundamentalism just means that they have their interpretation as a base (fundament) - not the culture, their preferences or opinions. --charon 12:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Evolution/Archive 3


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intersubjectivity

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 20:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intersubjectivity

 * del. Yet another original research in deQuinceanism (or simply copyvio from here) by User:Christian de Quincey who may or may not be Christian de Quincey., in addition to Kinds of subjectivity, also under VfD. Mikkalai 16:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * delete Original research DDerby 18:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * comment - I think that intersubjectivity is a notable topic in various psychological, philosophical and pedagogical schools of thought, and there could be a good article here, but I don't feel qualified to write it. FreplySpang (talk) 12:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Intersubjectivity is certainly an encyclopedic topic, but this article looks problematic. - Mustafaa 07:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Dreamlanders

Dreamlanders are the cast and crew of regulars whom John Waters has used in his films. The term comes from the name of Waters' production company, Dreamland Productions.

Many of the original Dreamlanders were friends of Waters from his native Baltimore, Maryland. They included the "bad suburban kids" he knew from Towson and Lutherville: Bob Skidmore, Mark Isherwood, and Mary Vivian Pearce. This crowd was drawn to downtown Baltimore by the gay scene, where Divine introduced Waters to David Lochary.

History
The original Dreamlanders also included denizens of the Fells Point neighborhood where Waters' art director, Vincent Peranio, a recent graduate of Maryland Institute College of Art, had rented an industrial space that once housed a commercial bakery with seven other Maryland Institute graduates, to use as cheap studio and living space. They called it the Hollywood Bakery. In Fells Point, the Dreamlanders were regular customers at Pete's Hotel, Bertha's, and Jimmy's. In addition to Peranio, the Fells Point Dreamlanders included Mink Stole, George Figgs, Bob Adams, Susan Lowe, Paul Swift, Chris Mason, and Peter Koper.

Although Waters has attempted to include many of the same actors and production team members in every film, not every Dreamlander is used in each of his films. This is frequently the result of the death of an actor, as was the case with Maelcum Soul, Edith Massey, Divine, and David Lochary. Other actors such as Jean Hill and Ricki Lake have not been used in every film, but appear occasionally.

Typically Waters would discover an actor and continue to use them in subsequent films. Most notably, Mary Vivian Pearce is the only Dreamlander to appear in every one of Waters' films, although her scenes in Cry-Baby were cut. Mink Stole has appeared in all of Waters' feature films, but does not appear in the early short films Hag in a Black Leather Jacket (1964), Eat Your Makeup (1967), and The Diane Linkletter Story (1969). Although many Dreamlanders have a prolific history with Waters, the distinction of being a Dreamlander is generally bequested upon anyone who has made more than one Waters film, such as Traci Lords who appeared in Cry-Baby (1990) and Serial Mom (1994). Danny Mills is sometimes considered a Dreamlander despite only appearing in the 1972 film Pink Flamingos.

title: Dreamlanders