Talk:Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

Untitled
This article contains almost nothing about the book and its content. It's nothing but anti-creationist propaganda and censorship. The article needs more information about the book itself, instead of the opinions of its critics. -Thinktank33 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Creationist praise
I cut back the creationist praise because this book is allegedly about science and not one of the sources is from an academic scientist nor from a mainstream group. They are all marginal sources by people lacking expertise in the subject (evolutionary biology). As a result, giving too much praise from marginal sources violates WP:UNDUE. We66er (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I reverted it. If as our article says, the book was important in the development of ID, Then we should let the reader know what the creationists have to say about the book. The fact that they are praising a book without understanding the science involved speaks volumes IMO. I'd rather the reader hear what they have to say and make up their own minds. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Their "reviews" offer no detail and say the samething. It's redundant to have three quotes from separate sources saying its a "secular critique of orthodox Darwinism" then "overwhelming scientific problems of Darwinian belief" and "unprecedented intellectual and spiritual feast". It was removed because it adds nothing of value to the reader. Its hollow praise that hits the reader over the head with the idea that creationists like the book. If you can actually word it so that the creationist praise provides some insight into the book fine, but it doesn't read that way now. We66er (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The same argument could be used about Michael Ghiselin's review. What does it add to the article? To be honest I would find it difficult to word creationist praise in such a way adds insight because you are right in that the praise is hollow. However your solution of removing all quotes and simply stating that creationists gave positive reviews isn't satisfactory IMO as it gives the reader no information whatsoever about why they like the book. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your kidding? Michael Ghiselin is a biologist and the book is a critique of evolution. What a expert in the field thinks about the book is completely relevant. The creationist views are fringe and offer no insight that can be summarized in one line that I wrote. Expert views are good, but fringe views can be summarized as they offer no expert analysis about the science the book claims to present. The relevant policy is WP:DUE. Creationist view points are fringe and should be treated as such in the article. We66er (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not kidding. The quote isn't specific enough. But anyway I've tried a compromise solution about the creationists view. I've kept one in full and used your summary for the other two. Is that acceptable? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * could you please tell me why a Christian Apologist and a Professor of Linguistics are qualified to offer an expert opinion on "the overwhelming scientific problems of Darwinian belief"? This is blatant WP:UNDUE weight. HrafnTalkStalk 19:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC) On closer examination, the quote is in fact sourced without attribution to an anonymous Answers in Genesis piece (which is clearly not a WP:RS as they don't even get Denton's field correct-- he is a biochemist, not a molecular biologist). I am therefore removing this. HrafnTalkStalk 19:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are going to do that could you do it properly and please and read what you left behind, as you've rather fucked up the paragraph. Note that a christian apologist is surely qualified to offer an expert opinion of the creationists' opinion of the book. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I've found a new quote that looks to me as if no one could possibly object as it only offers an opinion on the creationists opinion that the book is important rather than stating anything about the science within. Is this acceptable? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it's such a big deal. Creationists have two different kinds of criticism of the theory of evolution.
 * That it violates the religious faith of the Creationists making the critique: e.g., that the theory posits an "old earth" which contradicts the YEC belief in an Earth which is < 10,000 years old
 * That it has scientific problems
 * Is it really that hard to distinguish between the ideological (i.e. faith-based) objections and the scientific objections? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's a direct result of there being no legitimate scientific objections, so whenever you analyze what is claimed to be a scientific objection long enough, it turns out to be based in the religious faith of the objector. Kww (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Un-biased?"
If that's true, why is the following statement in the article? "The fallacy in Denton's argument was that there is really no such thing as a "living fossil", all modern species are cousins." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.20.179 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Because it is cited to a reliable source, and represents WP:DUE weight to the majority scientific viewpoint on the topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is VERY biased. It's a sad fact that you have to live with. Perhaps you can fix it, but make sure you have some reliable sources. See WP:IRS. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is very biased towards verifiable reality, giving due WP:WEIGHT to majority expert views, and has no place for unsubstantiated opinions of editors. The sad fact is that some editors seem unable to accept this. Wikipedia WP:TALK pages are for specific proposals for improving the article, backed up by verification from reliable sources. Comment unrelated to this can be deleted or archived, which may be the best option for this thread. . dave souza, talk 06:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And how do you determine who's an "expert". It's quite subjective. Zenkai251 (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (Anybody wishing to argue with/educate Zenkai251 further may wish to take a look at this thread and this comment, before deciding if doing so serves any good purpose. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC) )
 * (With respect to this disruptive edit, I would point out that the linked-to background has every relevance to Zenkai251's abuse of WP:AGF on the topic of 'bias' and WP:DEADHORSEing on the topic of reliability of sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC) )


 * I would question whether Zenkai251's bald, non-specific and unsubstantiated assertion that "Wikipedia is VERY biased" has any relevance whatsoever to improving this article. I would however state that if we are in fact going to discuss their views on the topics of bias and reliability of sources, we should do so cognizant of their earlier opinions on these topics. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, my statement of fact has everything to do with improving this article and every other article on wikipedia. If we can remove bias, wikipedia will become a much better place. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The WP:TRUTH™ rears its ugly head again. 08:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, your posts keep getting weirder and weirder. Zenkai251 (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Truth, unlike an opinion, is not open to reasonable debate. Any reasonable person presented with The Truth will agree with it, so by definition, any debate or resistance must be unreasonable." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Publication date
From Amazon.com the U.S. edition of the book was published by Adler & Adler in April1986, but using preview to see the copyright page it says "Originally published in Great Britain by Burnett Books Ltd., produced and distributed by the Hutchinson Publishing Group. Cpyright © 1985 Michael Denton". This info is summarised in an NCSE article. Alibris has a copy for sale and gives the ISBN: 0091524504 ISBN-13: 9780091524500 so this edit is incorrect, but the ISBN number and publisher shown is for the U.S. version. . . dave souza, talk 13:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have revised accordingly, the infobox didn't work with both editions so I've used what info was available on the Burnett edition. Amazon.co.uk gives the publisher as Ebury Press (18 Mar 1985) just to add to the fun. The US edition template info is shown below in case it's useful. . dave souza, talk 13:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * publisher = Adler & Adler
 * release_date = 1986
 * subject = Evolution
 * media_type =
 * pages = 368
 * size_weight =
 * isbn = ISBN 0917561058
 * dewey= 575 19
 * congress= QH371 .D46 1986
 * oclc= 12214328

Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. I changed back a few other places I had made the change. Art Carlson (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021020083714/http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html to http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/15.5docs/15-5pg40.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)