| Revision as of 08:25, 18 February 2007 editVanished user (talk | contribs)15,602 edits →Julian Huxley← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:28, 18 February 2007 edit undoStudyAndBeWise (talk | contribs)1,230 edits →Julian HuxleyNext edit → | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
| I'm going tohave to give you a very important warning for Creation-evolution controversy: Julian Huxley literally turned science into a religion, and became a strong advocate of ]. We ''must not'' describe other biologists of that period with the language suited to Huxley, as it would be misleading. However, you should be able to find lots of sources to make your comments on Julian Huxley as arbitrarily strong as you wish. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | I'm going tohave to give you a very important warning for Creation-evolution controversy: Julian Huxley literally turned science into a religion, and became a strong advocate of ]. We ''must not'' describe other biologists of that period with the language suited to Huxley, as it would be misleading. However, you should be able to find lots of sources to make your comments on Julian Huxley as arbitrarily strong as you wish. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I've temporarily reverted your change back to evangelising for Darwinism, because Larson's description of Huxley, for the reasons I explained, shouldn't be applied to all biologists of his time. He was ''extreme'', so it's not a justified extension. However, the more I think about it, the more I realise how apt that description is, as long as it's only applied to Huxley alone. Can we rephrase it appropriately? ] <sup>]</sup> 08:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | :I've temporarily reverted your change back to evangelising for Darwinism, because Larson's description of Huxley, for the reasons I explained, shouldn't be applied to all biologists of his time. He was ''extreme'', so it's not a justified extension. However, the more I think about it, the more I realise how apt that description is, as long as it's only applied to Huxley alone. Can we rephrase it appropriately? ] <sup>]</sup> 08:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Let me take one more stab. ] 08:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:28, 18 February 2007
For service above and beyond the call of duty
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For a selfless and impressive performance on Creation-evolution controversy Filll 23:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
Reminders
I am creating a page to save research on types of creationists.User_talk:StudyAndBeWise/TypesOfCreationists and User_talk:StudyAndBeWise/HarvardHowTo
- In this regard, you might find some of the information I have collected so far at Talk:Evolution/controversyarticles to be of interest. It is not anywhere closed to finished yet, however.--Filll 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks filll. StudyAndBeWise 05:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Archives
For archiving, please see --Filll 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Creation-evolution
No worries, thanks for the heads up. My background leads me to check things, especially putting numbers to things to do a "sanity check". My main aim with the numbers is to make sure that we are thinking about what is in the article, and what the implications are. The implications are there, numbers or no.Trishm 11:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
falsifiability
For example, Richard Dawkins, biologist and professor at Oxford University, explains that "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found." Similarly, the evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what hypothetical evidence would disprove evolution replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era", a period more than 540 million years ago, a time when life on Earth consisted largely of bacteria, algae, and plankton. The absence of such evidence against evolution serves as one of the primary criticisms of creationism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 02:44, Feb 1, 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks filll. Turns out I found one of the connections you point out, the Time magazine article. Do you have page numbers for the Dawkins or Ridley books? I'd hate to cite whole books for a simple quote.StudyAndBeWise 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
References to fill's falsifiability citation
- As quoted by Wallis, Claudia. The Evolution Wars. Time Magazine, 15 August 2005, page 32 . Also see Dawkins, Richard (1995). River Out of Eden. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-06990-8. and Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.
- Evolution, Third Edition, Mark Ridley, Blackwell Science, 2003
Newsweek
As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science...".(Keeping God out of the Classroom, Larry Martz, and Ann McDaniel, Newsweek, June 29, 1987, p. 23-24). I am waiting for the library to send me a copy of the article from their archives. I have it on order at the moment. I have not yet been able to find the article online.--Filll 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Newsweek quote, as copied by me personally
I have now gone to a library and looked at the physical copy of the article from 1987. Here is what it says:
As reported in Newsweek magazine, 29 June 1987, Page 23: "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." (Keeping God out of the Classroom, Larry Martz with Ann McDaniel, in Washington and bureau reports, Volume CIX, No. 26, June 29, 1987, ISSN 0028-9604 Newsweek Inc., NY, NY,p. 23-24).
It does not mention the source of the data, the 700 or 480,000. However, I believe that McDaniel and Martz still work for Newsweek and we could contact them. Comments?--Filll 01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good job tracking this down. I'll comment on the creation-evolution controversy talk page StudyAndBeWise 03:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
SBC position
Regarding do you have a citation that the SBC position has changed? JoshuaZ 21:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is in the already cited (and misquoted) Matsumura|1998 reference. I am adding something to the Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution discussion. Stay tuned. Matsumura herself questioned the SBC. StudyAndBeWise 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Upload
I don't see the upload when I click on the link. JoshuaZ 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know what happened, but I fixedit. Let me know if you still have problems. StudyAndBeWise 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Creationist Orchard
Would you mind reviewing the content related to creation-evolution which was added to article common descent under the section Common descent and Creationism? I had some trouble adding similar material in the past and wanted to make sure it was encyclopedic. I also think some of the information can help in writing the creation-evolution controversy page. Pbarnes 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just took a look. I don't have time right now because I am neck deep in the creation/evolution controversy article. In general, I try to quote disinterested parties whenever possible (e.g., historians). If that is not possible, I try to cite opposing parties who come to the same conclusion. If that is not possible, I try not to add anything to the article no matter how important I think it is. And this is tough, because I from time to time find cases that should be included in my opinion, but it would probably fall under original research or soapboxing. I'll have to take a look at the article in more detail in the future. StudyAndBeWise 01:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed it
Only because it does assert notability, and you are not allowed to remove it yourself of course. It's something I would probably prod or AfD, but I'll let the other editor take that route if they feel it's necessary. Leebo 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Glad it was done, for I myself am totally unable to judge Notability in this subject area, though by the standards of other areas the article is a little on the thin side. :) . However, I'll be glad to look at anything about evolution or creationism. even just to give an opinion.DGG 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, asserting notability here was as simple a matter as saying the rapper won that contest. Now, I don't know anything about the contest, but it's an assertion. The reason speedy delete exists is for cases where the article basically describes the person as normal with no extra reason to be in Misplaced Pages, but borderline notability needs to be discussed not erased without community consensus. Leebo 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I understand both of you, and will try to improve the article. StudyAndBeWise 01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, asserting notability here was as simple a matter as saying the rapper won that contest. Now, I don't know anything about the contest, but it's an assertion. The reason speedy delete exists is for cases where the article basically describes the person as normal with no extra reason to be in Misplaced Pages, but borderline notability needs to be discussed not erased without community consensus. Leebo 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: creation-evolution controversy
Thanks for your message here. I've tried to provide some sort of explanation at the bit of the talk page you pointed out. As for the table, there were only a few items on it, so I thought it would be better in a list. I know there's a two columns thing somewhere, if it's still too long. --h2g2bob 10:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Julian Huxley
I'm going tohave to give you a very important warning for Creation-evolution controversy: Julian Huxley literally turned science into a religion, and became a strong advocate of transhumanism. We must not describe other biologists of that period with the language suited to Huxley, as it would be misleading. However, you should be able to find lots of sources to make your comments on Julian Huxley as arbitrarily strong as you wish. Adam Cuerden 08:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've temporarily reverted your change back to evangelising for Darwinism, because Larson's description of Huxley, for the reasons I explained, shouldn't be applied to all biologists of his time. He was extreme, so it's not a justified extension. However, the more I think about it, the more I realise how apt that description is, as long as it's only applied to Huxley alone. Can we rephrase it appropriately? Adam Cuerden 08:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let me take one more stab. StudyAndBeWise 08:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)