Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:57, 5 November 2005

Are the italics at the bottom of this a violation of Misplaced Pages:No disclaimer templates given that one of the five includes "Misplaced Pages's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view)..." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand that. I'm not trying to ignore you, but I'm going to go on and paste a quote below. Uncle Ed 21:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Difficulty of understanding what "evolution" is

On the PFAW web site:

"Earlier polls have really only scratched the surface of this very complex and nuanced issue," said Daniel Yankelovich, president of the polling firm DYG, Inc. "Three or four survey items are not enough to understand how the public really thinks about evolution and creationism in the classroom. We developed an entire, comprehensive survey to exploring the numerous and critically important facets involved in public opinion on this issue."

I would like Misplaced Pages to express accurately how the American public thinks about evolution and creationism in the classroom. Is there a policy against this? Or is there a policy which says that if a dozen people don't want Misplaced Pages to include a topic that they have a right to delete any article which includes this information? That would be a missapplication of deletion policy. Uncle Ed 21:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Indifferent. I only question the inclusion of the text at the bottom of the article - "Misplaced Pages takes no sides in the controversy over whether evolution is true, but only seeks to describe the major sides in the controversy fairly without drawing any conclusions." This looks like it's a repeat of the disclaimer templates. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck with this. Don't get stressed! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

POV issues

We need to take this article out of a creationist view trying to be PC in front of evolutionists. You have made this article about polls and not about actual terms and their use by either side.

Both sides in the creation-evolution controversy claim that a majority of Americans support their point of view on "evolution".

Although just about all Americans have heard of Evolution, less than half say they are very familiar with it. Further, roughly one in three hold an incorrect definition of Evolution.

It appears as if it is only an introduction into your preferred article listed below the intro:

Public opinion polls show that Americans are apt to give significantly different answers to the question "Do you believe in evolution" depending on the definiton of the term.

See:

• evolution poll

The only definition you chose to add was the most useless in this article. Please pardon me if you consider "useless" as an attack but it is meant as a criticism since it does not help anyone coming to this page. I came here hoping to see the terms used in the debate and found only "evolution" a term that is the sole focus of the debate, and thus useless to debater or audience in deciding the issue. Where are the actual terms used by each side to explain their opinions regarding evolution? - Tεxτurε 21:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Good criticisms; thank you. I will add those terms bit by bit over the coming days, provided that no one deletes this article! Uncle Ed 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitions and the Kansas issue

PFAW says:

An individual’s definition of Evolution has a significant impact on his/her opinion regarding the Kansas State Board of Education ruling to eliminate Evolution from its science standards. Those with an incorrect definition of Evolution (humans evolved from apes) show a greater likelihood to support the Kansas State ruling (though still less than a majority) than those who have a correct definition (humans evolved from lower forms of life).

"Those with an incorrect definition of Evolution (humans evolved from apes)... " marks this as a POV source that I would suggest not using unless it is to show the creationist definition and pull an evolutionist definition from an appropriate source on the other side. - Tεxτurε 22:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm having a lot of trouble getting this understandable. I reread it and it comes out different each time. - Tεxτurε 22:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Take a look at the article and tell me if I'm on track now. - Tεxτurε 22:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Texture, the article is much improved. I'm amazed at how well we were able to collaborate today! I look forward to improving the article further.

The more clear the terms are, the happier I will be.

I am NOT trying to use this article to win any points here at Misplaced Pages: I just want the DIFFERENCES between what Creationists and "evolution" supporters believe, to be really clear. Uncle Ed 01:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Divine intervention

Is it the Sagan definition (no divine intervention needed) that people have in mind when they say "evolution is compatible with religion X"?

• For Roman Catholic Church top leadership, the answer is no, isn't it? Doesn't the pope and his top cardinal say that divine intervention *IS* needed to explain the origins of human beings? If so, then is it really accurate to say that the Roman Catholic Church "accepts evolution"?

Should this page be deleted / redirected?

Joshua wrote (in an edit summary):

All of these "terms" are defined on the creation-evolution controversy page. Please edit there rather than starting new pages

This is untrue. Not all of these terms are defined there. Where is Sagan's definition of evolution which specifies "no divine intervention needed"?

I don't know why there are scare quotes on "terms".

Joshua's request not to start new pages is puzzling, in light of the fact that other topics at Misplaced Pages have "definitions of" pages. This is specifically to address the fact that various advocates use words differentely.

Anyway, I don't intend for this sidebar article to remain permanently on its own. When it's ready, it can be be merged into creation-evolution controversy. It's just easier to work on articles in small chunks sometimes. Uncle Ed 11:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Since most of this article is already covered in the ], it is most appropriate to work on that page. Having many different pages with different editors with different agenda working on them is not condusive to effective editorial dialog with articles that are controversial. If you want Sagan's quote in the controversy article, please include it where it would be appropriate. The major bulk of this article is, however, already in the controversy article -- some of it verbatim. Joshuaschroeder 13:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to redirect the article. You should gain some support before acting since multiple editors are working on this article. - Tεxτurε 15:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshua, I take credit for any duplication between articles. I wanted a starting point for this article to expand and it was easiest to begin with what was already established. I feel that this article has room to grow in ways that would not be represtented in the main controversy article. Are you suggesting a new section in the controversy article for the dozens of terms that will be added under this header? Wouldn't it be best to leave such low level detail out of the main article? - Tεxτurε 15:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this, but this article right now doesn't seem to add anything substantial. In particular, it using the neologism "evolution debate" which was decided over a year ago to avoid and be replaced with creation-evolution controversy. I get the feeling that editors of this article haven't read the tremendous amount of work that has gone into the creationism article, the creation science article, and the creation-evolution controversy article. The repetition doesn't seem to me to be worthwhile and I don't understand why this is in main namespace rather than a project that some use undertakes or is addressed on the talk page first. Neither you nor User:Ed_Poor seems to be willing to help improve the creation-evolution controversy page directly and I think that this is problematic -- especially because now duplicate material is presented over here. I'm going to AfD this page as an unnecessary fork since the material is already covered on the other page and because this page is titled improperly (there is no reason to preserve the edit history). Joshuaschroeder 16:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to AfD the article I will hold off changing the title from "debate" to "controversy" if that is the correct terminology. I do read and watch all of those articles because they are of interest to me. I do not believe in ID or creationism but I think the discussions and legal wranglings are fascinating. Ed Poor is interested in improving creation-evolution controversy - you just don't agree with his improvements. (Often I don't.) This doesn't change anything and seems like venting.

Back to this article, if you are going to AfD teh article feel free and we'll abide by the outcome. If not, how about you contribute and help make it a good lexicon of all angles of the controversies uses and misuses of terms. I'm sure you can offer plenty of misuses by creationists that would be well to document but really don't add much to the main articles. - Tεxτurε 16:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I decided not to AfD the article because I think that we can actually make this article a good clearinghouse for terms. I've changed the name of the article. Please comment. Joshuaschroeder 16:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

List of terms

I think this article will work well as a list of terms. Any objections? Joshuaschroeder 17:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, the text that was included in this article before was either redundant to other articles, extremely myopic, or misleading. I think that the linked articles will do a fine job at explaining the terms used, but if there are any editorial concerns beyond this, please list them here. Joshuaschroeder 17:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the new page title Terms used in the creation-evolution controversy much better than Terms used in the evolution debate. And I must confess that I didn't even realize, until I saw the new title, that "creation-evolution controversy" says it better than "evolution debate" - and I'll tell you why.

Today and yesterday I have to come to realize that the idea of an evolution debate implies that scientists are debating amongst themselves whether unguided evolution is possible or even a "fact". Except for a negligible 0.2% of bioligists, this is not an issue. So calling it a "debate" implies that it's a scientific debate. I don't think it is. (Maybe it should be, but that would be my own POV and thus irrelevant: I'm just a volunteer here at WP and have no subject matter expertise in this area.)

The controversy is mainly about how human origins should be taught in school. And there has been dishonesty in the public debate. (Since I lean toward the Creationist side, I'll "confess" THEIR sins and try not to say anything disparaging about the other side.) Creation Science (so called), to the extent that it denies the authenticity of the fossil record, really looks dishonest to me. And it's not exactly "science" any more than the "Christian Science" of Mary Baker Eddy - which denies the reality of evil.

Hmm, I seem to be getting off track. Sorry.

To sum up: good job on the Misplaced Pages:page move, Joshua. And although I've restored the Texture-Ed Poor version twice, I made sure to keep the nicely laid-out, linked terms which were apparently copied from evolution (disambiguation). Maybe we can all 3 of us work together here. Uncle Ed 17:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you have figured out the community consensus on how to title the controversy. It was one that was determined some time ago. You can read about it on the Talk:Creationism and Talk:Creation-evolution controversy pages. I encourage you to read those pages because they will teach you a lot in how to write NPOV in this regard.

In terms of the text that you and Texture were working on, it seems to be problematic from a number of angles. First, a lot of the text had nothing to do with the subject of the artice which is, ostensibly, just about the terms. An article about "terms" shouldn't have any discussion of what the "American public" thinks of the terms any more than an article that is stating the different fundamental particles should. We've had a problem on the creationists/Intelligent Design pages for some time in having way too many inter-related articles, and I think that a list does a good job. However, the text that was included was problematic. Let me break it down piece-by-piece.

1. Theory vs. fact -- this is a section that is well done on the creation-evolution controversy page, I think. There it is laid out in plain detail why this is part and parcel to the controversy. What need to we have to reprint it here?
2. Teach the controversy -- this is a section that has an article that explains it much better than the paragraph that was included here. And since teach the controversy is part of the ID discussions, it is not broad enough to encompass the entire "controversy" of creation-evolution. A very myopic paragraph, really.
3. Evolution -- as you pointed out there is a very good disambig page on this subject (which I didn't by the way, copy any of the material I wrote here from -- I did all of this from my own work here on Misplaced Pages). It seems what you really want to talk about is public (mis)conceptions of evolution. Unfortunately, this is beyond the purview of the title of the article.
4. "Created kinds and "microevolution" -- this paragraph as it was written was very much a creationist POV, perhaps without you even intending it. Both of these "terms" are strictly creationist in bent (microevolution being something of a neologism and created kinds being one of those creation science ideas). To devote a paragraph section to these terms is to give a rather large nod of the head to those who promote these terms as a means to promoting their own ideas about the flaws in evolutionary theory. Those on the other side vocipherously oppose such promotion and this causes some major NPOV problems when you include a paragraph devoted to these ideas. More than that, Hovind's demarcation of evolution is so strictly creationist as to be limiting in scope. Let's leave it on the creation-evolution controversy page where it belongs, okay?

I hope you see why I found the text so problematic. The list of terms I have is not exhaustive, but it is more representative of the actual terms that get used in the context of the controversy. It would be great if we could create an exhaustive list: that's what Misplaced Pages is best at.

As for 3RR, I think you'll find that I did not violate it. I did remove the problematic material a number of times, but I never technically reverted. I understand that 3RR is more than just the technical violation, but unless you yourself do the blocking, if you try to report me you'll find that I never reverted to the same version as I was continually adding new information. My intention wasn't to revert but to continue to develop the article to a list of terms that was satisfactory for all those involved.

If you can let me know what exactly you were hoping for in terms of text of this article, that would be appreciated.

Joshuaschroeder 17:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Do you think this is just a list of terms? Nothing more than a list? That isn't really useful because it does not explain why these terms are used or misused by one side or the other.

The article isn't caused "Why terms in the creation-evolution controversy are misused". It's called simply "Terms in the creation-evolution controversy."

For instance, I could not gain any understanding of creationism's misuse of microevolution without some explanatory text.

But if you clicked on the link, you would gain understanding. Joshuaschroeder 18:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We need to add that to your list. Each term must have explanation regarding how one side uses it or misuses it from the standpoint of the other side.

This, I'm afraid, is an invitation to open up a whole can of worms and the controversy is already well described on the controversy page. We can't simply create a (mis)use of terms page because such a page would be subject to incredible interpretation. Since creationists invent half the terms they use, who am I to say they are "misusing" them? After all, even though microevolution isn't used by the scientific community, that's precisely the argument that creationists are trying to use in order to get the term introduced in the first place. To be perfectly neutral we'd have to have a separate article on "creationist neologisms" which would be then lambasted by creationists for being too pro-science. You see the problem here? I'm sympathetic to your desire to provide context, but it cannot simply be done from looking at what side says what about the other side. Joshuaschroeder 18:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a controversy so arguments over the user of terms need to be explained. The text will be POV because we are trying to show what POV is driving the use/misues of terms. This is explicitely about POV driven terms. This is not about the accepted meaning of the terms but about how they are used in the controversy, school board debate, legal wrangling, etc.

I think it would be better to refer to specific cases on the specific pages rather than having a clearinghouse which will get unwieldy. What someone says in the Kansas School Board debates about "specified complexity" would be very different from what someone else even on the same side' would say about it. That's why describing how they are all used is a task not suited to a single article. We already have the articles you are looking for. I'm open to suggestions about how to making those more available and visible. Joshuaschroeder 18:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I can go to the Misplaced Pages article for each of these terms but won't have a clue how the terms are discussed in this controversy. - Tεxτurε 18:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Then why not read the creation-evolution controversy page? It tells you there! Joshuaschroeder 18:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a disclaimer in the intro can keep anyone from confusing the POV with factual definitions. - Tεxτurε 18:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We've tried to make side-by-side POV descriptions on this subject before. What ends up occuring, unfortunately is a lot of grandstanding and tit-for-tat editting that begins to devolve quickly into a point-counter-point of the controversy itself. There hasn't been found a good way to report as you are requesting yet found. The issue is that for every argument that is made there is a counterargument that has also been made, and often these discussions go in circles. Representing these contrasting POVs is worse than any political report I've seen because the scientific literature is exhaustive and the creationists have huge on-line resources at their disposal to respond to anything. Inviting this sort of description is a recipe for disaster. We've gone down this road before. Joshuaschroeder 18:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because someting is difficult or because controversial issues will cause edits and counter-edits is not a reason to not do something worthwile. I am approaching this from the point of an interested reader (which I am). What I would be looking for when I come to this page is a short (perhaps a sentence or two) on each term saying how it is used in the most bland neutral terms. Just because POV drives the use of the term doesn't mean we have to argue about the worth of that use. (Hence a disclaimer would be good.) You listed a great deal of terms and I am at a loss how many of them have been used and would love to see a very short explanation - not of what the term means buy why it is included in the controversy discussions/debates. - Tεxτurε 18:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Your new explanation of what you want may be a bit easier to accomodate. Do you have any terms in particular that you are at a "loss" for how they are used? Joshuaschroeder 19:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussing the list

(recalibrate left) Not as many as are listed. Many of those listed aren't terms and I don't know why we'd need them listed. Many are controversial topics but not "terms" used by either side. They make great "see also" on the main article but not in a list of terms: (REMOVE imo)

• Cosmogony
• Teleology
• Origin of life - an argument, not a term used.
• Origin of Species - not a term

Good terms that could stand a short definition would be:

• First cause (Cosmological argument)
• ex nihilo
• God of the gaps
• Abiogenesis
• Modern synthesis - (Modern evolutionary synthesis)

Good terms that cannot be understood from this controversy's standpoint are:

• Mainstream science - The links are to seperate terms that have nothing to do with the combined phrase's use by either side.
• Origin of the universe - link to Big bang? Creationists would not agree and such an association should be explicit from an evolution POV and not hidden in a link
• Evolution - key term in the debate
• Microevolution - clearly needing each sides view
• Macroevolution - clearly needing each sides view
• Evolutionism
• Darwinism

(REMOVE imo) Biased POV toward evolution

• Origin of the solar system - an evolutionist link that has nothing to do with the controversy and would never be used in the argument/debate by either side. (Not to mention it isn't a "term".)
• Origin of humanity - link to human evolution? clear POV toward evolution and not a term used in debate

More later - I only got to "Origin of Species" on the list. Do you get the idea I'm thinking of? "See also" stuff like "Origin of Species" is not a term used but a historical science document. "Origin of the solar system" has never, to my knowledge, been a key term discussed in this controversy. The link is only to an evolutionary view and provides nothing as a term. Things like this don't belong in a list of terms used by one side or the other. It doesn't help the reader understand. (It's a great "see also" but that is probably covered in other articles or in a category.) - Tεxτurε 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm interested that you have some terms you want to remove because they are "biased" toward "evolution" while there are no terms you find "biased" toward creationism. I don't think you've made a good case at all for which terms are "not used" in the creation-evolution controversy. For example, "cosmogony" and "teleology" are both used fairly frequently. You can do a Google Search to find them.

You want to remove the list of scientific discussions of origins. This is peculiar to me. When the "evolutionists" argue they refer to these origins most of the time. These are terms that they use which have well-understood and well-defined definitions. Creationists, on the other hand, refer a lot to Creation according to Genesis, for example and they also refer to creation science. If you truly want to present all the terms used in reference to these discussions, those ideas will have to be included.

That you think that there are "sides" to the discussion of "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is interesting as well since the terms are strictly creationist in their bent toward distinction. Not that "evolutionists" don't shy away from using them to prove points, (such as in Theobald's famous essay), but in any case a disambig for these terms is hard for me to envision.

Regarding terms I considered "biased" toward "evolution". (I did tell you I don't believe in ID, right?) Since you created the list and chose to link terms to articles that clearly have no purpose in creationism and aren't even useful to evolutionists - yeah, they're biased toward evolution by their very nature. Linking to the Big bang? How is that neutral? Had you listed the topic, "Origin of the universe" and then beside it listed "Evolutionist view is of the Big bang" then it would not be biased but factual even before adding the creationist definition of the term. By hiding (whether intentional or not it surprised me to find it linke to big bang) the link to a purely evolution-based article it seems to mislead the reader.

Since the link is listed under the heading of mainstream science, how is this misleading again? Joshuaschroeder 20:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You say "You want to remove the list of scientific discussions of origins. This is peculiar to me." That's because this is a list of terms and not scientific discussions. Other articles are to discuss. This article is just about terms. No discussion should be included. Just how do they use the term when standing before a podium. No good about it. No bad about it. How do they use it.

But when evolutionists argue creationists, the discussion is about science. When scientists who debate creationists use the term "origin of the universe" when standing before a podium they mean exactly what that link points to. Joshuaschroeder 20:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A good NPOV would be what you stated here. For "Origin of the universe" you could list both Big bang as the science use of the term and Creation according to Genesis as the creationist use of the term. But to only link to one and not note it as only one side's view is POV. Right?

We have a separate section for what the creationists argue and the terms applicable to their arguments. I suppose it is a matter of taste, but I think it is much better not to mix the two positions but rather give them their own space and their own development independently. Creation according to Genesis is linked on the page under creationism. Joshuaschroeder 20:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Your points on "macroevolution" and "microevolution" should be in this article! That's the point! How are creationists using the term? Do evolutionists use the term at all or how if at all? - Tεxτurε 20:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

But the points are in the articles on the subject themselves. I must admit I don't follow your position right now. Joshuaschroeder 20:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As for the creationist list - I told you I hadn't gotten to them yet. If they are only arguments and not terms they don't belong here. - Tεxτurε 20:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't digested this section of the discussion yet - lately I've been more of a prolific writer than a voracious reader - but how about a table showing WHICH SIDE uses each term the most? Joshua makes a very good point about "biased" toward "evolution" vs. "biased" toward creationism. I agree that "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are strictly creationist terms, and that we should not remove the list of scientific discussions of origins.

It's because of things like this that I want this article!!! Uncle Ed 21:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed and Joshua, do we really need a link to Solar nebula under the title "Origin of the solar system"? It does not come up in a single discussion about evolution versus creationism. I thought this list was going to be about the terms used in the controversy. If we include links to every topic in science that does NOT come up in this controversy then this list will be thousands long. - Tεxτurε 22:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't come up in a single discussion? Are you kidding me? I've been in literally hundreds just by myself. Hovind lists it as one of his pet-peaves of science. I can point to a number of websites that disagree with the solar nebula from a creationist discussion. Where is your citation that it "does NOT come up in this controversy"? Joshuaschroeder 09:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You're telling me that creationists disagree on what a solar nebula is? Or are you saying that evolutionists use it and creationists just says it didn't happen? - Tεxτurε 15:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

How people use the terms

Joshua wrote (above):

First, a lot of the text had nothing to do with the subject of the artice which is, ostensibly, just about the terms. An article about "terms" shouldn't have any discussion of what the "American public" thinks of the terms any more than an article that is stating the different fundamental particles should.

There is no public controversy over the fundamental particles. I bet most people couldn't name more than proton, electron and neutron.

Point well taken. Never the less, if you ask a question you get an answer. Here's a better way to phrase it, then, it isn't up to the American public what evolution or creationism is about unless they themselves are invested in the subjects. To put a big show about polls is problematic for this regard since one can, in principle, ask any question in a poll and get an answer. Joshuaschroeder 09:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I want Misplaced Pages to have an article on Terms used in the creation-evolution controversy is because Americans use the terms differently, depending on what side they are in the controversy, and this gets them talking at cross purposes.

I think that the articles we have in the encyclopedia itself do a good job of getting rid of these cross purposes. Anyone reading the evolution article will be able to understand what is meant by this term. Joshuaschroeder 09:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no point in making this article, if it's only going to present the "correct" meaning of each term. Especially if by "correct" we mean "the way supporters of evolution use each word". That would be completely one-sided.

While it is okay for Misplaced Pages to report POV that are notable, it isn't clear that we have determined what qualifies in this subject arena. In particular, there are a lot of people who have a lot of ideas that are incorrect. How do we decide which incorrect ideas to include? Joshuaschroeder 09:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Many of the terms are used differently by Creationists than by supporters of evolution. (Maybe because they are ignorant, but they do vote and pay taxes, and pollsters say that politicians care what they think.)

Many terms are used differently by different creationists. How do we decide which creationist to report? After all, we can't interview them all. Joshuaschroeder 09:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope, at least, there will be a distinction made between theistic evolution and naturalistic evolution. Uncle Ed 21:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, in that there is a distinction between theistic realism and philosophical naturalism. However, science makes no distinctions as to what metaphysics one ascribes to. You're on your own for that one. Joshuaschroeder 09:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

How about an article on the use of terms in the creation-evolution controversy? I envision a table with four columns:

1. the term
2. how supporters of naturalistic evolution use it,
3. how supporters of guided evolution use it
4. how supporters of Creationism use it

If there are blank cells in a row, this would indicate a refusal to use the term. This would help us (and especially our readers) to see who uses what terms. Uncle Ed 12:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I would object strenuously to the creation of such an article as it will inevitably lead to propreity issues in Misplaced Pages as it did when it was tried a year ago with the views compared fiasco. Please do not create such an article without addressing how you would go about determining the "uses" and how you would prevent the article from becoming the trainwreck represented by the "views compared" article. Also, your current idea is very limiting in scope with only three "views" represented. This is a false trichotomy. Joshuaschroeder 17:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

List of articles vs. definitions of terms

Joshua has done an excellent job of listing terms, each of which is a blue link because there's an entire article about each term. I had thought he just copied this from the evolution (disambiguation) page, but he says not - and I believe him. Even without glancing back and studying the differences, it's plain that Joshua's new work goes far beyond distinguishing different uses of the word "evolution".

But none of the these Terms used in the creation-evolution controversy are defined in the present article. It is precisely and merely a list of Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy. Hence the page move. Uncle Ed 11:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)