Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/Archive 3

Big Problem
The article defines a fact as an observation. So... when did we observe the evolution of a species? Saksjn (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been observed many times in many ways. I've added a link to Talk:Evolution/FAQ up top, and this topic is addressed specifically here. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We have observed speciation in the laboratory numerous times, as well as in the field. For example, the plants on the opposite sides of the Great Wall of China are different species. Several nylon eating species of bacteria have appeared in the last few decades, and this has been repeatedly observed and is well established. Some are less direct, but there is a special species of mosquito that has evolved to live only in the London Underground. And there appears to be a special species of bug in Hawaii that has evolved special mouths to eat bananas. There is a ton more on TalkOrigins and in our own speciation article. That should get you started, but it is obviously an immense field with thousands if not tens of thousands of examples. And of course, that does not include the less direct examples of speciation evident in the genetic code (the fingerprints left on our DNA by endogenous retroviruses and the teleomere in the middle of our 2nd chromosome, for example) and in the fossil record (which has many examples as well).--Filll (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We've dealt with this before. Read the archives, read talk origins, don't bother with anything similar unless you've a reliable source - that is to say, a scientific journal, not a creationist mouthpiece.  WLU (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps "adaptation" has been observed, evolution if it is happning is a string of adaptations and a very slow process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.253.64 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, you seem to be a new user. This page isn't for discussion of the subject of the article but for improving the article. If you have reliable sources for your opinions you want to discuss, great.  Doug Weller (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article totally misrepresents the true nature of scientific enquiry in order to fit it into the evolution vs creationism debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozfreediver (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

National Academy of Sciences
I dropped in to read this discussion because I thought it might be amusing. It was just incredibly frustrating ;). Anyway, I thought I would drop in one "fact" to this discussion.  Instead of "theories" about the position of the NAS, here's a quote from their publication "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science".  You can find it online here: http://www.nap.edu/html/evolution98/, or you can buy a copy for yourself: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0309063647/.

Sum up: The NAS says evolution is a theory and a fact. End of discussion. You can still disagree with them. You can argue about their definition of fact. You can say that they all idiots who are descended from apes and we shouldn't listen to them anyway. But hopefully we can at least stop arguing about what their position is.

Actually, that publication is pretty good on making all these differences very clear. It might be worth including a reference to it in the article. Not that this is going to convince anyone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSKNuDnh8Kw). Chaleur (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In what was going to be the revised version of this article, I was going to feature NAS material and definitions far more prominently. However, since this article has been defined as a war zone by a substantial number of Wikipedia editors, I have decided for time being to not edit it or improve it any longer. The threats and vendettas being waged for things as simple as quoting the NAS are just too much to take. I would suggest that you also stay away from such dangerous sources as the NAS because you will probably receive death threats or worse for even daring to suggest that the National Academy of Sciences publications are a good source for Wikipedia. Sad, but true. Every editor who let things get to this point should be ashamed of themselves. It is an embarassment. But the condition of these articles is not worth dying over.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 20:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pointed noted, and agreed. Though it is a pretty sad state.  I think the world will probably have to wait another generation (or more) before the ridiculousness of this is accepted.Chaleur (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Two points: first, the original article opens with a definition of 'fact' which says two things: facts are observable (meanining if I dispute it as a 'fact' you can show it to me) and facts are statements which have become so well believed that they are taken as facts. Specifically you say "a fact is an observation or a piece of data." Thus, if I observe something I assume it's a fact -- and if you too observe it -- it's a fact. From what I observe in the ongoing discussion here, some people want to make a distinction between that which can be directly sensed (i.e. observed) -- the changes in the genetic structure of organisms as they adapt to new environments, for instance, and the conclusion that such a mechanism (or mechanisms) are sufficient to account for speciation. The first is a narrow reading of 'fact.' The second is a statement about the general consensus of the technicians working with the observations made in the field. If you get a group of Western doctors together and present a patient with a certain list of symptoms they would proceed on the assumptions of modern Western medicine. They would not need to demonstrate that some microorganisms can cause a fever because it is assumed to be a fact. If therefore, the patient has a fever, the doctors assume infection by those microorganisms. They take the presence of those organisms as a fact.

Now, in the same manner, those who see evolution as a fact (in the second sense) want to treat it as a fact of the first sense -- they want to claim that they have observed it. And those who want to reject evolutionary theory (which is what they see it to be if it is only 'fact' in the second sense) insist that the evolutionist proove that the theory is a 'fact' of the first sense. But, as you at least implied, since evolutionary theory cannot be directly observed (partly because of the time scale needed, and partly because there is a lot of fuzziness as to what exactly constitutes a truely evolutionary change), it can only be taken as a fact in the second sense, and because that sense is socially mediated it is a fact to those who are in agreement, and a 'mere' theory to those who are not in agreement.

Thus, to improve the article I suggest you delineate between socially constructed facts and observational facts. You do so, indirectly, and because of the fuzziness of the distinction, the discussion of evolution as 'fact and theory' is inadvertantly muddied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccsi99 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to turn this into an outright discussion on the matter...but Evolution as observable fact is demonstrated in a regular basis by students learning the basis of gene heredity and manipulation in college-level courses. Evolution is observed and directed in fruit fly research which has lead to a wide array of advances in medical science. For some reason, certain people, in all of their ignorance, want to see outright unnatural phenomena that the theory doesn't postulate in order to accept that it is true. This is an irony that is almost something to be appreciated. Mathenaut (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Gravity and Evolution ????
Why are two contrasting fields of science being compared?122.104.137.25 (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been verified that notable sources use the comparison, and they're not as contrasting as you might think. dave souza, talk 13:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a long long history of comparing these two, since at least Darwin. It is a comparison that has been used over and over and over in the scientific literature. Sorry.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 14:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be sorry, many scientist are committed to naturalism. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All scientists are committed to naturalism as a method of working, irrespective as to whether or not they believe in metaphysical naturalism. Of course pseudoscience commonly rejects naturalism. . dave souza, talk 12:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all scientist are committed to working under the ambiguous "laws of nature". One basic tenet of science was that nothing can propagate faster than the speed of light.  The bell inequality shattered this law. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This was not a "basic tenet of science" -- merely a part of the Theory of Relativity, which was itself a refinement of Newtonian mechanics. It is perfectly conceivable that somebody will further refine Relativity to harmonise it with quantum mechanics. HrafnTalkStalk 15:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * At least as determined by repeated court rulings and as declared by every major scientific body in the world, methodological naturalism is a requirement of anything called "science" and this has been accepted at least since the scientific revolution, at least in mainstream Western science. It is true that Islamic science rejected methodological naturalism around 1100 CE (it was accepted as part of Islamic science before that) and only relatively recently has methodological naturalism been reaccepted as a requirement by scientists in Muslim countries (in the last century or so maybe?). Perhaps at some time in the future methodological naturalism will be rejected again by mainstream science; we will have to see. But for now, methodological naturalism is important for anything called science. One should however be very careful not to confuse methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism, as Dave souza suggests.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 15:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave did provide a great link to pseudoscience, the definition was interesting, it went on about preconceived bias and what constitutes "scientific method". 122.104.137.25 (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And science requires scientific method. Whooda thunkit! . . dave souza, talk 08:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that this article isn't "science"? Whooda thunkit! 122.104.137.25 (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sitting comfortably? This is an article about science, and as such NPOV: Making necessary assumptions applies. . . dave souza, talk 11:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link about writing for the enemy and a bit more about pseudoscience. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about science, it's about a group of people trying to impel their ideology into mainstream. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're the editor who changed the urls within references so that they were not just wrong, they led to Creationist websites. Please don't lecture anyone about 'trying to impel their ideology'. This article is about what mainstream science says. Doug Weller (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to say "mainstream dogma". It doesn't fit into scientific method so its not science. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page for the article, not at SOAPBOX for this sort of argument. Doug Weller (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, it's agreed then we'll nominate the page for deletion. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Want me to do it ? I am not sure anons can vote in AfDs, and if they do, I am not sure their votes count to be honest.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fill. 122.104.137.25 (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fill, I hope you are joking. And I'm sure you know that AfDs are not votes (and IP editors are welcome to put forwards cases based on policy and guidelines for Deletion or retention. Doug Weller (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is a rant
This article has one purpose, and one purpose only. It is to call anybody who calls evolution a theory, a nincompoop. All the sources brought have the same purpose which is why they are irrelevant. In any case it, totally ignores the issue. People who are calling evolution a theory are not talking about micro-evolution. They are talking about common descent. This article as all virulently pro-evolution articles do, is undoubtedly deliberately not making that point clear. --Ezra Wax (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Hi again to all those of you who I haven't butted heads against in a while.


 * This article has one purpose...to call anybody who calls evolution a theory, a nincompoop.
 * The theory of evolution is a theory. However, a "theory" in scientific terms differs substantially from the colloquial usage. This issue of nomenclature is regularly misused by those ideologically against and/or ignorant of the well-established scientific evidence and theoretical foundations. One who argues that "evolution is just a theory", an all-too-common refrain from creationists, makes a strong case for acute ignorance at best and chronic nincompooposity at worst. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There might be a difference, between scientific usage and regular usage, but it's not that significant. The fact is that Science uses the word theory about things that cannot be absolutely proven. It is impossible to absolutely prove a theory. It can only be strengthened or weakened. It cannot even be disproven, because as soon as it is, the theory is altered to take into account the disproofs. --Ezra Wax (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is not intended to debate the reality or level of support for evolution. The mis-use of 'theory' by creationists to portray the theory of evolution as weaker than it is has been well documented in the literature discussing the controversy.  The page could be re-written to demonstrate this more clearly for certain but the I believe the mis-use of theory is sufficiently notable that the page is appropriate.  The various mis-uses of the term and corrections have been documented and should be referenced.  The issue then becomes how to best discuss it.  Were there any suggestions to address how the page should better represent its subject?  WLU (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The diference is quite significant. The colloquial usage is more akin to an idea or hypothesis, while the scientific term requires an explicit framework that incorporates known evidence and provides predicitive power. As for disproven theories, the history of science is littered with the corpses of long-discarded theories that could not stand up to scientfic scrutiny. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not shown that creationists are misusing the word theory. It is called a theory because it is unprovable. Evolution is a postulate. It is believed on faith or rather the lack of it. --Ezra Wax (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't have to show that creationists are misusing the word theory, we can cite multitudinous sources that do. The assertion that evolution "is believed on faith or rather the lack of it" is clearly only your opinion and of no use to the improvement of the article. Do you have any concrete suggestion that would improve this article? &mdash; Scientizzle 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There should be sources quoting the rebuttals of creationists to the claims of the evolutionists. --Ezra Wax (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE limits the application of nonscientific criticisms towards well-established scientific theories. Creationist sources make very poor reliable sources in regard to evolutionary biology, notoriously so. As asked before, please provide any relevant reliable sources. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The example given there is the Flat Earth Society. That is much less significant than the opposition to Evolution. --Ezra Wax (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There might be a difference, between scientific usage and regular usage, but it's not that significant. Funny that this has been the root of repeated court cases, including at least one in front of the US Supreme Court, and the creationist willfull misrepresentation of this difference has been the cause of creationists losing over and over and over and over. Millions of dollars flushed down the toilet. Creationists embarassed over and over and over for decades. Yeah, you are right, I guess it is not that significant.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 20:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's your view of things, but it doesn't make it so. In any case, in an article whose sole purpose is to attack creationists, the creationist point of view should be mentioned as well. --Ezra Wax (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I will no longer be editing this article since it generates such hostility from people such as yourself. However, if you want to have some viewpoint presented, then provide reliable sources.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not an accident. You created it in order to move the outcry against the evolution article over here. The fact is that most of Wikipedia assumes the views of the evolutionists in opposition to its policy of not assuming a position on any controversial issues. --Ezra Wax (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has a policy position on the use of reliable sources, which perhaps you haven't read. So in one sense it has a bias towards a scientific point of view. Doug Weller (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Wikipedia tends to disregard religious sources as reliable when it comes to things that science has an opinion on that are based on axioms that have not been proven. If a religion is of the opinion that each species was specially created, then the fact that Science looks for a naturalistic method of creation as an axiom cannot disprove the religious opinion and no science article should be allowed to state as an absolute that species were created through evolution. Scientists are not the only "reliable" source that should be permitted. --Ezra Wax (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with your implicit characterisation of the entirety of science as a mere "opinion on that are based on axioms that have not been proven" -- the axiom of methodological naturalism underlies all modern science. Likewise if we are to give 'reliable' status to the religious "opinion that each species was specially created", where do we stop? The religious view that demons cause disease and mental illness? Penis theft by sorcerers? Scientists are the only reliable source on factual issues within the purview of science. HrafnTalkStalk 06:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You said it yourself. Science is based on an axiom, that of methodological naturalism. That axiom cannot be proven valid. Assuming that axiom as valid, Science has the best answers. But there are notable, reliable sources that disagree with that axiom, and have stated their logically sound reasons for doing so. If the "ridiculous" religious views you are mentioning are notable then they cannot be discounted just because Science believes otherwise. You state the opinions of Science and the opinions that are not supported by Science. Science is not unassailable. It is a faith just like any other faith, and there is no reason it should be given primacy. --Ezra Wax (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is not a rant, but this thread in the talk page is. I suggest that Ezra Wax should read and try to understand the article, and that it is time to close this discussion topic. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is most certainly a rant. Don't blind yourself. It weakens your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sculptus.Poe (talk • contribs) 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There you go as soon as you feel you are losing the argument, you decide it is time to censor the person making it. I know how this goes. In another few minutes you will decide to remove the discussion from the page so that nobody else can see it. You cannot unilaterally archive a talk page or stop a discussion in the middle. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To be blunt, Ezra, you appear to be "losing the argument". You have yet to provide a relevant, reliable source worth vetting on this page. Instead, you have only treated us with your interpretation of science ("It is a faith just like any other faith"). As such, because talk pages are meant to improve articles, not debate the topic, please provide something actually worth discussing. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'm holding my own quite well, thank you. Is there any point in me adding "reliable sources" if in your view a reliable source is by definition one who supports evolution? In any case, I've found plenty of statements where the sources cited don't support the statement. Even here, all of the sources, I'm certain are themselves rants by evolutionists against creationists and therefore cannot be considered reliable. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're not going to provide anything to work with, then there's no reason to continue this, is there? &mdash; Scientizzle 18:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I first wanted to establish that there is no cogent argument against my intentions. As I believe I have. --Ezra Wax (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's quite impossible to cogently argue against rambling nonsense. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You classify Evolution as a fact, give me some proof. I am a creationist and i have a question. Evolution is unprovable by the scientific method, so is creationsim, so that makes both Theories. There has been no observations of Evolution. The mosquitoes in the London Subway would be classified under "Adaptations" not Evolution. If you have evidence, show me. tell me. I want to know. --- Ian Moss--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.51.108 (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ian, you say 'I want to know'. That's good. You should then make the effort to read the information that is readily available in Wiki and elsewhere with an open mind because it's pretty clear from your questions that you haven't done this yet. All of the terms you use such as 'proof', 'fact', 'theory', 'adaptation' and 'evolution' are explained. Evidence is provided together with abundant references for you to read about the modern evolutionary synthesis. All of this information is at your fingertips just a few clicks away. A good place to start is Talk:Evolution/FAQ. You can also find a wealth of information at TalkOrigins http://www.talkorigins.org/. Try this page for example http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html. Once you have read and considered all of that information you will be well placed to make a reasoned judgement about the strengths and weaknesses of both the modern evolutionary synthesis and creationism. You can then make valuable contributions to the content of Wikipedia rather than asking questions that have already been addressed many times by editors here. As a creationist, one way you can make valuable contributions to the content of Wikipedia is to review the Talk:Evolution/FAQ page and provide questions that are frequently asked by creationists that aren't currently addressed by the page.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ian, can you give me an example of something you would consider a proven fact?Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin, what is "a proven fact" and how does it differ from "a well established fact"? . dave souza, talk 16:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A fact is a scientific theory that has been proven by the scientific method... somthing that can be recreated by experament. Neither evolution or creation can be recreated or experiamented with, so we must gather and compare evidence to find a conclusion.---Ian Moss--- Ragz5 (talk · contribs)


 * Ian, can you give me an example of a fact please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sean i know exactly what 'proof' fact' theory' adaptation' and 'evolution' means, thats not what im asking. there are just to many holes and unstable 'proof' for evolution to be taught as a fact. why cant creationism be taught as a scientific theory in our schools today? they teach the Theory of evolution as a fact.---Ian Moss---
 * Because Creationism isn't science. And please see WP:NOTAFORUM.  Let's end this debate, and move on.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read Fact. This talk page is not for the discussion of the topic, but for improving this article. If you have any suggestions on ways to improve this article, please provide them. Otherwise, as per talkpage guidelines, this discussion should be closed. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

When I glance through this nonsense, it is clear to me that some of the people above have not actually read through this article, the related articles, and the references. Please do so before clogging this page with more irrelevant marginalia. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 20:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The observed changes in populations
The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, from the "theory of evolution", namely the current scientific explanation of how those changes came about.

I think stating that the observed changes in populations is a fact is false. That is in itself a theory much of the time. Certainly in laboratory situations and historically corroborated situations it is a fact, but when it comes to fossil records, it is only a theory in the layman's sense of the word. --Ezra Wax (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your thought is unsupported by verification from reliable sources. This page is not for unsupported speculation. . .dave souza, talk 07:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not my thought that is unsupported, it is the one in the article. It needs a source stating there is a "Fact" of evolution. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a rebuttal to evolutionists creationists
My addition of the above words might read poorly, but it is important, because that is the point of the article and the article completely ignores it. If you have a better suggestion of how to say it, please speak up, or I'll try again with different wording. The random stuff was the result of a conflict between wiked and lookitup2 that messes me up sometimes. --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So where are your reliable sources? Also, you have misunderstood the meaning of scientific fact, clearly. And also please note that the use of the term "evolutionist" is frequently offensive.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 03:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the sources you are using are themselves in support of saying that the term is a rebuttal against creationists. I am not sure what you are getting at with the term scientific fact, but any time you decide that something is true based on deduction, you have to be certain that all agree that your deductions are sound. I don't disagree that "evolutionists" is somewhat offensive, but so is creationist, and it is used all over Wikipedia, and it is not less offensive than evolutionist, but in any case it was a typo I meant to write creationist, and meant to say that the phrase this article is about is used by "evolutionists" against "creationists". --Ezra Wax (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Creationist" is widely used in scholarly commentary on the issue (see especially Numbers' The Creationists), and is invited by Creationists' own self-descriptions: the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Science Movement (formerly the Evolution Protest Movement) and 'creation science'. The other side by contrast tend to identify themselves merely with 'science', as in the National Center for Science Education, Kansas Citizens for Science, etc, etc. Their point being that they're not only defending evolutionary biology, but all science (and especially palaeontology, geology and cosmology, in addition to evolutionary biology). This renders the term 'evolutionist' inaccurate -- in addition to reducing science to a mere '-ism'. HrafnTalkStalk 07:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think Creation and Creationist are equivalent. Besides even if a term is used by those whom it's deriding is not a proof they don't find it offensive, it could still be convenient. The "all" of science that you are talking about has the same agenda as the evolution part. It is all in support of a naturalistic view of the universe. But there is plenty of valid science whose agenda is neutral. Calling that subsection of science evolutionists is no less inaccurate than calling them Scientists. And the point IS to reduce Science to a mere is -ism, because in this context that is exactly what it is. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (i) I didn't say that "Creation and Creationist are equivalent" -- but the two concepts are clearly related. (ii) Whether they find it offensive or not is irrelevant, as we have WP:RSs that state that it is the proper term. (iii) It is not an "agenda", it is a necessary and utilitarian starting point -- if you add the supernatural into the mix, you end up with a jumble of unfalsifiable, conflicting (was it God, Odin or the Invisible Pink Unicorn that was responsible) claims. (iv) There is no science that does not rely on methodological naturalism -- just some science whose conclusions don't conflict with your religious ideas (but may well conflict with someone else's). (v) It is when the derided science in question (e.g. palaeontology, geology and cosmology, as stated above) often has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. (vi) Your claim that it's an '-ism' is mere proof by assertion, most probably because it contradicts your cherished sacred cows, so must be discredited. HrafnTalkStalk 19:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy of Wikipedia is to use the sources which are relevant to a given topic found in the scholarly literature of the relevant academic discipline. If you are addressing evolution, it is part of a biology, which is a science. And well over 99 percent of all professional biologists accept evolution as the most viable theory for the facts observed. If you are discussing Jesus, the vast majority of the academic community believe that Jesus existed, and so the Wikipedia articles reflect that. We do not write the Jesus articles from the scientific viewpoint, or the Catholic articles from the scientific viewpoint, and we do not write the biology articles from the religious viewpoint. That is the way it is. If you do not like it, there are many many other wikis which do not follow these same principles, such as Conservapedia. You are welcome to go to a wiki which is more closely aligned with your preconceived notions about what "truth" is, or how a wiki should be organized and run.

As for your questions about "scientific fact", it either shows you have not read this article and the linked references, or you did not understand it. There are facts, and there are scientific facts. They are different. Learn the difference. There are theories and there are scientific theories. They are different. Learn the difference. When you understand these basic points, then you can actually discuss this intelligently.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 12:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are smoothing over the nuances of Wikipedia policy. In any case Evolution is not just a Science article, it is a religion article as well. It makes assertions about areas that are validly within the domain of religion, and as such it disingenuous to disallow sources from religious authorities. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ezra, you think science is religion? Hahaha.

No original Research
This page breaks the rule against original research. The opening paragraph has nine sources for one statement. That is by definition original research. You should be able to find one or at most two sources that definitively state the point. --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, the more people who say the same thing, the more it is original research if we put it in Wikipedia? Whereas if we had no sources, it would clearly not be OR? Is this building up to an argument that any article about evolution that uses more than one source is original research? Doug Weller (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's obvious that it's original research. The reason why there are so many sources is because nobody says what is asserted so that the only way to prove it is to bring multiple sources, which is by definition research. --Ezra Wax (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ? WP:OR says nothing about too many sources being against policy. Rather than a Gish Gallop of proof by assertion, allegations of attempted censorship, philosophical ramblings, misreadings of policy, and claims of sources you refuse to present, why not nominate the article for deletion and be done with it. If you're only here to stonewall or soapbox, you are, by by definition, being disruptive. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not against policy, but it is a strong indication that it is original research, and that is against policy. I looked up your Gish Gallop link, and that implies that there is no opportunity given for answering objections, but that of course didn't happen. The attempted censorship allegation is quite valid, as it has happened to me before that a discussion I was in the middle of was deleted, and I took your statement as a threat to do the same. The philosophical ramblings and misreadings of policy are of course a matter of opinion. I haven't done the research for sources yet. I didn't see any point in making substantive modifications to the article if they would just be reverted, until I covered the groundwork. I took up your suggestion, and nominated the article for deletion. --Ezra Wax (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you explain how you could come to that conclusion? If I could find 25 reliable references that state the camel urine cures male pattern baldness, I'm going to be a lot less skeptical (and run down to my local camel farm for a jar) than if I see one reference from a much less reliable location.  I'm kind of confused by your logic.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article states 'Evolution is often said to be both theory and fact.' There is no source that says often so in order to prove it, the article has to bring multiple sources that say that it is both theory and fact. The word often is based on original research. Since that word is the only thing that justifies the existence of the article, and there is no reputable source that uses it, the whole article is original research. --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ezra appears to totally misunderstand what constitutes "original research" when he says that nine sources for one statement "is by definition original research". Only by Ezra's personal definition, perhaps, but certainly not by the definition on the OR page, or by any common meaning of the phrase. He also appears confused when he claims, "The reason why there are so many sources is because nobody says what is asserted". Um, no -- the reason why there are so many sources is because so *many* reliable souces say what is asserted that a) it's does a disservice to the reader to narrow it down to only one or two, and b) there is such voluminous evidence for the statement that it's useful to refer the reader to a great many diverse sources which cover the topic from varying lines of evidence. Another good reason for including many sources instead of one or two, especially in an article like this, is c) argumentative creationists often like to incorrectly claim that there's little or no support for some aspect of evolutionary biology, or try to handwave away a given source in order to attempt to undermine a claim, and thus it is useful to provide many sources for a claim in order to make the vacuousness of these creationist attacks apparent to a reader who might otherwise fall for these "evolution is an empty shell" attacks by propagandizing creationists.

Ezra, if you have an actual suggestion for improving the article, feel free to make it, but so far I've seen nothing in your edits to this page which rise above pointless contentiousness or naysaying. This latest attempt to dismiss a well-sourced claim as "original research" because it's "too" well sourced just descends into complete silliness. If you can't discuss the science on it own terms -- and simply namecalling it as "dogma" or (gasp) "naturalism" doesn't rise to the level of discussing the *content* of the science itself -- then ultimately you're just wasting your own time and ours on this talk page. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * His attempt to use AfD to delete the article on the basis it is OR (with, he says, only 2 statements sourced) is yet more time-wasting. Doug Weller (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of whether this page is original research, I do agree that the list of 10 sources after the "frequently seen" phrase is excessive. The first source, from a webpage of "Moran, Laurence" contains mostly quotes from other sources that are listed as sources already on this page (from Gould, Lewontin, etc.) I would say this first source is unnecessary; all of its material is from sources that are already listed on this page.Davidstromberg (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)\


 * I will admit that the ten references presented that way is a bit ugly. I am in the middle of rewriting this article to make it a bit more pleasing aesthetically. Please bear with me in the meantime.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If I could offer briefly, under the "Scientific terminology applied to evolution" heading, the mention of fossils as facts is brought up, but doesn't seem to be linked to any other points. Not sure if this is meant as an example of scientific fact that is not necessarily related, or if it is being used as a fact of the argument of Evolution as fact.  If the latter is the case, those statements would need to be fleshed out with examples and sources (obviously).  I appreciate everyone's work on this! Davidstromberg (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some hits from "the other side"
In the process of preparing my response for the AfD discussion, I came across the following article by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute: part 1, part 2. Given the source, it may or may not be useful in the article. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since it agrees with the central theme of the article itself, it might be useful in a "even a prominent creationist agrees" sort of way. --Ichneumon (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag WAS recommended by AFD closure
The following was pasted on my talk page by the person who closed the AFD:--Ezra Wax (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Evolution as theory and fact


 * I hope you don't mind me speedy-closing the AfD on this article. You nominated it for deletion because it was PoV. While I agree with your reasoning, keep in mind that PoV per se is not a reason to delete, but rather a reason to clean up, except in extreme cases where the article is hopeless. I don't think the article is hopeless, so I would recommend placing POV on the article instead, as a means of informing other editors that it needs work. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not believe that this personal opinion of TenPoundHammer means much.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There are at least three independent editors whose view this as POV. --Ezra Wax (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see no neutrality problems with this article whatsoever? Can you be more specific... you appear to be the only editor with concerns. Teapotgeorge (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ezra - please put together an exact list of what you find POV. This needs to be succinct and in relative detail such that editors can fix the POVness that you have identified.  If you cannot put together such a list, or if you just say "the whole document is POV" (or some variation thereof) then the addition of the NPOV tag can be just viewed as a form of WP:TE and removed by editors without further discussion.  Shot info (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with the whole article, but for starters look at the next section where I try to change the opening paragraph and it is rejected. The claim that there is no reliable source for the views of creationists is baseless. There are countless reputably creationist sites out there that make the claim I have sourced, namely that macroevolution is not a fact. Since that is the crux of the article, and the point it is trying to prove, if the fact that it is the opinion of creationists that macroevolution is unproven remains unmentioned in all places where it is pertinent, the article is NOT neutral. --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Websites do not qualify as reliable sources. Creationist religious dogma can be discussed at Creation science for starters.  Creationists can make "claims" but they cannot be validated scientifically, especially since they cannot be falsified.  That is, a Creationist starts with the assumption that some deity created life as it is.  That's impossible to test and research.  Ezra, I really think there are other articles you could edit that would benefit from your knowledge, like Creationism or creation science.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A reliable website is a reliable source. Scientists' dogmatic beliefs should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Whether Creationists' claims are valid or not, is besides the point. It is whether there is a notable group that makes the claims that matters, not whether they are correct for doing so. Besides a Scientist starts with the assumption that everything just happened and he has no basis for that assumption. Once again, it is not relevant whether the claims of Creationists are valid, only whether they make them. I don't appreciate the condescension and I care specifically about the articles that drown out the critics of evolution, and that is why I'm here. --Ezra Wax (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:VERIFY, all of which are the foundation of WP:NPOV. It is absolutely not relevant that Creationists espouse fringe theories.  This encyclopedia does not have to state all viewpoints equally, and should represent those viewpoints that are verified with reliable sources.  Critics of evolution are drowned out, not because of dogma (which is relevant to religion), but because the criticism lacks any credence or weight.  No one is condescending to you, only that your tendentious editing may not be very useful here.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ezra, please focus. If you cannot supply a list, then you have no reasons for the tag, as you cannot identify the problem. If you cannot ID the problem, then editors are quite correct in removing the tag. Shot info (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

View of those opposed to evolution
I added the following to the opening paragraph. This is in accordance with the recommendation that I find sourced opposing views. It was predictably removed. Pray tell how you can honestly say that this statement or something similar does not belong in the article. --Ezra Wax (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

However, those who disagree with the theory of common descent maintain that only microevolution is a fact, while macroevolution has not yet been established.

Such an addition (I don't see it - I guess you have not in fact added it) would be totally inappropriate in the lead. Apart from the POV-pushy nature of it, it is simply confusing to complicate the relatively simple "story-line" of the article by getting bogged down in "macro" vs. "micro" evolution at such an early stage. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs</b> ) 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is unfortunate the AfD wasn't an Admin closing, and that it was suggested to him that he put a POV tag on the article. This is not the Theory of evolution article and for this article, an opposing view would presumably be that the theory and fact of evolution are the same thing, or something like that. A discussion about the theory of evolution is not appropriate here. Doug Weller (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is that storyline that is the problem. --Ezra Wax (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your failure to comply with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV/FAQ is the problem, exarbated by your tendentious disruptive editing. You've been asked to comply with WP:TALK and have repeatedly failed to do so. Not good behaviour. . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand we have heavyweights such as Stephen Jay Gould, Nobel prize winners, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, etc, etc. On the other side we have an Michael Denton, an undistinguished biochemist whose "later book Nature's Destiny contradicts many of the points of" the cited book, and the work of some previously-unheard-of biology PhD, originally published in the St. Louis MetroVoice, a Christian newspaper, not a scientific journal. Guess where the WP:DUE weight lies in questions of science? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC Religion regarding adding viewpoint of creationists
RFC comment. Hello, I've never seen this article before, nor do I edit much in evolution, nor do I have strong passions on the subject (I certainly believe in evolution, but I don't think that creationism is somehow morally wrong). Having said that, I have two comments:


 * 1) You proposed lead sentence appears to utterly miss the point of the article's topic and should be excluded. The article is about the phenomena of evolution being denigrated as "theory." Using reliable source, this article shows that "theory" and "fact" are refer to different things in science. Your proposed addition muddies the terms and should be excluded. Scientist's positions on these theories is discussed in other articles.
 * 2) The lead's absurd 10-footnote string cite is ugly and unhelpful. Pick perhaps the best three.

This is a useful article. Kudos to those who compiled it. Cool Hand Luke 04:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thge purpose of the article is to explain that Evolution can be used to mean the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution, 2 different things. What exactly is the creationist viewpoint on this? AFAIK it agrees completely, ie the fact of evolution has been observed in many animals, but the Theory of evolution is not the correct explanation for why this happens.
 * Isn't this a major creationist argument when the fact of evolution in bacteria is shown? Hence the creationist viewpoint on this issue already is included. We could add a cite saying this: "changes observed (fact) in bacteria over time does not prove that the theory of evolution is true", hence immplying the fact and theory must be seperate. But for one more cite to the 9 already there, which will just agree, what is the point?
 * The disagreement over whether the theory is true belongs on a different page - it has nothing to do with the difference between the scientific fact and the scientific theory.Yobmod (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming that this RFCSci is about adding the following quote to the first paragraph of the article:


 * 'However, those who disagree with the theory of common descent maintain that only microevolution is a fact, while macroevolution has not yet been established.'

(If this is true can someone edit the RFCSci to better reflect what this RFCSci purpose is.)

The above statement does not belong for a number of reasons. The most important argument for this is that even if it was true (scientifically) it is not relevant to the purpose of the article. If the article was 'Gravity as theory and fact' it would not be relevant to include in the article that the Newtownian theory of gravity is only an approximation to GR unless the article discusses the theories of gravity in detail. The purpose of the article is to distinguish between two scientific terms not to explain the details about which version of the theory is considered most correct. Second, even if we accepted that the proposed sentence was the scientific consensus (which it is most definitely not) and we accept the idea that because the article mentions the word theory is must discuss which version of theory is most scientifically accepted (which is stretching the purpose of the article) it most definitely does not belong in the first paragraph which summarizes the content. The statement is too tangential to the purpose of the article even if it was true.

TStein (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well said. I'm not 100% certain if this was the RFC topic myself, but I assumed it was because of the section immediately above. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment was requested, so I'm adding one. I'm not sure this article is salvageable. That characteristics of organisms have changed is observable. That the best currently known models for the types of change we see are variants of evolution also seems correct, but this interpretation is surely not a "fact" in the sense in which that term is being used here. One issue is that the term "evolution" already has an interpretation builtin. Thus evolution isn't a bare fact (if there is such a thing), because saying that we observe evolution is already characterizing our observations in a specific way. Furthermore, most practicing scientists (at least in areas I know, primarily physics) don't use terms like fact and theory. They use terms like observation and model. The question is what model is the best explanation of the observations. The only possible use of an article on "evolution as theory and fact" would seem to be to comment on actual use of those terms in the debate between scientists and creationists. Thus as far as the original question is concerned, I would have no problem at all including creationist views in this article.. But I have serious questions about the usefulness of the article as it exists. Hedrick (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe some of the original context may have been lost. The original question was (referring to some of the oririginal edits) whether the views of creationists should be added without indicating that they are the views of creationists, and instead putting them on equal scientific footing as the views of mainstream biologists.  The rough equivalent of this is, say, adding views of Young Earth Creationists to, say, an article on inflationary cosmology as one of the "alternative hypotheses".  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 19:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if the views of creationists are listed (and the revised version will have a much more extensive discussion of the history of the confusion about this created by creationists, and the legal challenges to the use of this confusion by the creationists), remember that we must follow WP:NPOV. By NPOV, we must present the views in proportion to their prominence in the relevant academic field; i.e. among academic biologists. And academic biologists support the theory of evolution by overwhelming numbers, well in excess of 99 percent. So...--Filll (talk | wpc ) 20:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please return the NPOV tag
The consensus has been that NPOV tag belongs at the top of the page. The NPOV tag itself says that it may not be removed until the issue has been resolved. In order that I not violate the three revert rule, I ask that somebody else please return it. --Ezra Wax (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As explained above, since it is clear that there is no "issue" other than you don't like it then the tag can, and has been removed. Until you clearly articulate the sections and areas you have a problem, then you are just engaging in a bit of constuctive editing.  Shot info (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What consensus? Doug Weller (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a consensus of one. Ezra Wax agrees with himself. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To be fair to Ezra, the non-admin who closed the AfD, TenPoundHammer, indicated that he should put the POV tag on it. I'll have to remember this when he goes for his next RfA.  Nevertheless, a consensus of 1 hardly qualifies as a consensus.  This article is completely NPOV.  Can we move on?  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 07:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously ... If the core of EzraWax's objection is (as it seems from a couple of his comments above) to do with "macro" vs. "micro" evolution, perhaps he would do better to go and fight that battle over at Macroevolution. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * He has no business fighting over the theory of evolution here. Orangemarlin, I was annoyed at the non-admin closure as I had hoped the closing Admin might comment at least on what I see as a tendentious AfD. He certainly shouldn't have given that advice to EzraWax. Doug Weller (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't this what Ten wrote? The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. PoV is a fixable problem, to which deletion is not the answer. If you have a problem with the article's PoV, I would recommend requests for comment. Non-admin closure. .  Dunno about anybody else, but I'm not seeing where Ten recommended the inclusion of a tag.  RfC yes.  Shot info (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, he actually took a stance on the article. On Ezrawax's talk page he has written "You nominated it for deletion because it was PoV. While I agree with your reasoning, keep in mind that PoV per se is not a reason to delete, but rather a reason to clean up, except in extreme cases where the article is hopeless. I don't think the article is hopeless, so I would recommend placing POV on the article instead, as a means of informing other editors that it needs work."  As I said, I'm unhappy with it not having gone to a regular Admin closing, although Ten I think had a right to close it. I am not convinced we should grant good faith to the AfD nomination. Doug Weller (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see 2 theoretical possible POVs here:


 * 1. Fact and theory of evolution are different things that need explaining.
 * 2. Scientific fact and theory are the same.


 * The article shows why the first is true. No reliable sourse holds the second view, whether scientific or creationist, so it should not be included, and the article is already NPOV. Hence tag not needed.Yobmod (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article clearly states that the usage of the word "theory" is due to a laymen's definition. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

'Theory' should not be in contradistinction to 'fact'
The gist of this article is to attempt to explain how evolution may be both fact and theory. The answer, according to a rather unhelpful and unrepresentative Gouldian viewpoint adopted by the authors, is that since fact and theory are different we must be using the word 'evolution' in 2 different ways; firstly to refer to experimental observations and secondly to describe an explanatory framework in which all the observations fit together.

I contend that while this view is out there, it is not the widely understood and proper solution to this conundrum. The answer instead should be that it is perfectly correct for one and the same hypothesis to be simultaneously refered to as both fact and theory. 'Fact' says something about the degree of certainty we have in a hypothesis. 'Theory' is a different way of classifying a hypothesis and is applied on account of its complexity, explanatory and predictive power. Statements therefore such as 'humans and monkeys have a common ancestor', 'dinosaurs existed' and 'gene frequencies change over generations' may well be fact as well as theory, even though it may not be possible to observe any of these things directly.

Those who insist that 'fact' must be observable should consider the following sequence. Looking at something with the naked eye, looking at something through strong glasses, binoculars, an electron microscope, a particle detector etc. At what point along this continuum does fact turn into theory? Is for example the statement 'electrons exist' a fact? There is of course always the possibility that the measuring device is faulty (or that our own senses are deceiving us). Consider this from Douglas Futuyma:


 * Any statement in science, then, should be understood as a HYPOTHESIS—a statement of what might be true. Some hypotheses are poorly supported. Others, such as the hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun, or that DNA is the genetic material, are so well supported that we consider them to be facts. It is a mistake to think of a fact as something that we absolutely know, with complete certainty, to be true, for we do not know this of anything. (According to some philosophers, we cannot even be certain that anything exists, including ourselves; how could we prove that the world is not a self-consistent dream in the mind of God?) Rather, a fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true.

I am convinced that to limit 'fact' to observations is an abuse of the way fact is used both in common parlance and by the scientific community, and that the article as it stands is misleading. I have reluctantly added POV to the article for scientific rather than creationist reasons. — Axel147 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your conviction is interesting, and there's the welcome possibility of adding this aspect to the article. However, you're quoting a source that doesn't seem to mention evolution, and is more about the generic issue of the relationship of fact and theory in science. You don't give a reference – where did this quote come from? It would be ideal to show this viewpoint alongside Gould's view, if it can be properly sourced and related to the subject without synthesis. Have you some ideas about how this can be done? . . dave souza, talk 20:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One source for this is on the Stephen Jay Gould archive 1 — ironic because I think Gould has unwittingly caused some of this confusion. But to be fair to Gould I think he's being misrepresented as he gives an excellent definition of fact as [something] 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' To define fact as an observation or piece of data in this article is massively confusing. This seems to be denying that any generalization is a fact such as 'fire is hot', 'lead balls sink in water' or 'grasshoppers are smaller than whales' as it is not possible to observe all cases. Maybe events such as meteors striking the earth can never be facts as they are difficult to observe directly. It even suggests that 'my brother shot my wife' can only be fact if someone witnessed it — CCTV plus other evidence is not enough?


 * Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology 3rd edition goes on to say 'the hypothesis of descent with modification from common ancestors has long held the status of a scientific fact'. Difficult to argue with this. Two professors of biology say evolution is a fact just as the 'helio centric solar system' is a fact 2 . No one can directly observe that the sun is at the centre of the solar system, but of course it doesn't stop these hypotheses being facts. Unfortunately putting two different perspectives in the article gives the creationists a field day, but it simply won't do to sweep one of them (especially the most widely held one) under the carpet. — Axel147 (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really confused. What you just wrote sounds like an endorsement that Evolution is both a theory and a fact.  Yet you put an POV tag on the article.  Please explain, and maybe I'll throw the POV tag back on the article.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Axel147 feels that regarding facts as mere observations is unnecessarily limiting. One can make statements of fact about specific events about which one has never made any observation.  However, calling this POV has a tendentious and WP:POINTy feel to it.  I think it is better to fix the problem, if any, rather than tag the page and try to convince others that there is one.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 17:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to lift POV and try to improve the article. - Axel147 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the point he's trying to make is that many "facts" are in fact (partially at least) "theories" that have become so commonplace that we overlook their 'theoretical' component. It is not a "fact" that voltmeters measure potential difference -- the only "fact" is that the needle moves/digital display changes. Based on this factual observation, and a whole heap of circuit theory, we establish that something called voltage is measured. Likewise heliocentricity is not directly observable, so is still actually a theory (just one that is so heavily supported & accepted that the theoretical aspect can be overlooked). At the very basic level, if you woke up with amnesia, you might conceivably not know that the ruler you used today would be of the same length tomorrow -- so even direct measurement would require postulating a 'theory' of ruler-length-invariance. I'm not sure that this point really belongs in the article (I suspect it might end up only confusing the issue), but it is not an absurd point. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, still being flummoxed, why is the article in opposition to that statement?  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not just a pedantic philosophical point, it's really important. I think most scientist would agree 'jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system' is a fact. But this cannot be observed by itself. Saying facts must be observations is too limiting. — Axel147 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Moreover the references given do not all support the definition of fact used in the article. Is it misunderstanding, deliberate bias or an attempt to provide a simple unified view for creationists? Consider reference 13.
 * ''Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact.'
 * This is clearly saying there are two uses of the word fact but evolution is fact in the second sense NOT the observational sense. This has been totally misrepresented. — Axel147 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Who considers what fact?
What is meant by evolution is a fact? Are you including common descent in the fact of evolution? Has the theory that there are beneficial mutations been proven to the level that it is considered a fact? The fact that is claimed in the opening sentence is a very weak fact. It is simply that the characteristics of populations change, but not any of the more controversial claims. It should be clearly stated in the article which parts of evolution are considered fact and probably by whom as well. --Ezra Wax (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think for most people the fact of evolution means we know beyond reasonable doubt that "the traits of organisms have changed gradually over the generations" (supported by fossils etc.). Additional hypotheses such as "all organisms living today have evolved from a common ancestor" and "natural selection is a cause of evolution" are often added but I don't think they are strictly what we mean when we say evolution is a fact. — Axel147 (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reading the very first line in the artical on theory of evolution provides a simple outline of the principle under which the theory is subsumed, which is what is credited with being a fact - namely that allele frequencies change in generations of a population often resulting in inheritable phenotypic changes. This is widely observable and testable, and is hence correctly attested as scientific fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.101.93 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing to me how confused people seem to be with what I thought was a reasonably clear explanation. Either this is willful misreading of the article, or misinterpretation, or else I have to write the next version more clearly. Wow. --Filll (talk | wpc ) 00:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As you see I've attempted some major changes. I'm not sure I'm happy with them myself. The only part that was actually suspect in the previous version was the interpretation of "evolution is fact". I think the content is correct but think the readability could be better - it now seems bogged down with explanations. It case of compromising readability for technical accuracy and presenting all major viewpoints. What the opinion out there? — Axel147 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Theory of Evolution is NOT True
It is time for us to state the truth. The theory of evolution is not true because there is too much evidence against it for it to be true. The number one disproof is the serious lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. If there are not enough "transitional" fossils to demonstrate the smooth transition between animals, which never happened, then evolution did not happen either. The only type of evolution that ever happens, or did happen, or even will happen, is micro-evolution, which means one specific SPECIES of organism adapting to its environment, but never changing into a different SPECIES of organism.--98.199.76.184 (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, both in Wikipedia and in science we do verifiability and not "truth". Your assertions are common creationist misinformation which hs been repeatedly discredited. Next, please. . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your objection is neither relevant nor established, since numerous transitional fossils exists linking transitions from all classes. The fossil record is extensive, and requires only a brief internet search to discover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.199.75 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not evolution is true or not, this page is not a forum for general discussion. This page is to be used for discussion surrounding improvements to the article, not debate as to the factuality of evolution in general. If you wish to argue that, please take your discussion elsewhere. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  18:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Two things: one, verifiability and truth are directly related as verification is ascertaining the truth of something; it is illogical to say otherwise. Secondly, the transitional forms arguement is illogical because even if you find a "transitional form", logically, all you have done is proven the existence of that particular creature and any further statements about its "evolution" are purely speculative assumptions, which seems to be what everyone banks on and does not bother to prove.  Like the article, saying that something is a thoery and a fact, i.e. evolution, is just not logically valid.  It is assuming evolution is true and using your assumed conlcusion to prove your conclusion, which has already been assumed.  This is also known as circular reasoning, another logical falsity.  Another thing, i find it strange that you cannot discuss articles' content and subjects on Wikipedia.  Basically, what you are saying is that wikipedia can say anything it wants to, as long as some scientists (who seem to be the arbiters of everything on earth) back it up, and not have to answer to anybody that might disagree.98.196.76.228 (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * define "verifiability"Metal9383 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC).
 * See WP:V. In fact see WP:POL for a list of Wikipedia policies.  There are a few of them :-) Shot info (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, if taken to mean the ability of something to be proved in the strong sense (i.e. synthetically in the Kantian sense), is senseless if first principles cannot be known to be true--even if you say axioms of a system are verifiable empirically, you are really saying either: 1. You are including another axiom in the system, specifically the axiom that states "observation implies existence (in the sense of first order logic)," or 2. That the physical world can be used as a meta theory for the theory to be "verified," but that meta theory must contain the axiom from "1." and will suffer the same defects as the original system--i.e. synthetic verification in the strong sense succumbs to infinite regression.  Hence, if we really want to mean anything by the term, we have to mean it in the weak deductive sense, or the weak probabilistic sense.  If it is in the weak deductive sense, we take a set of premises to be absolutely true (as in mathematics), and show that they deductively (using rules of inference and system axioms) entail the truth of a conclusion, where we say that the conclusion is verifiable.  If it is in the weak probabilistic sense (as in the sciences), then a conclusion is verifiable to the degree that, with addition of premises (observations taken as true), the long run probability of the conclusion is always increased (i.e. the limit of probability, as the number of premises approaches infinity, is 1 (deductively true).  The probabilistic sense of verifiability is basically saying that a conclusion is verifiable if, once all relevant knowledge has been accumulated, it is deductively provable.  If a probabilistic system allows for deductively undecidable conclusions once all relevant knowledge is accumulated, we might say that verifiability within that system is an even weaker version (weak, weak probabilistic verifiability), and a conclusion is verifiable if, once all relevant knowledge is accumulated, it is the most probable conclusion.  In any sense but the strong sense, verifiability is analytic in the Kantian sense (i.e. conclusions are contingent on the truth of the axioms of the system in which it is verifiable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.155.100 (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes '~'. Please stop filling up the discussion page with stuff that doesn't have anything to do with improving the main article. Please follow the links already given for wikipedia's definition of verifiability. If you wish to argue for a different definition of verifiability, please do so on the appropriate talk page, Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability, not here. Does anyone else mind if I delete this whole section in a few days? It only serves to slow down the page load. -- Another Stickler (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick question
Is it really necessary to have ten citations for the first sentence? I would think that four or five would be far more than enough. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the number of citations is a problem, although if you feel one or more are repetitive or unnecessary, please mention it here. We're all for making it more succinct. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with the citations per se. I came to this page because I saw an IP edit it, and I thought it looked weird having 10 citations for one sentence. But it really is not a big deal. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  17:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually a couple of citations are wrong because they say 'evolution is fact not theory'. I'll clean this up so we still have 8 on the opening line. — Axel147 (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic
After going through this article, my main difficulty is that it is written as if it were a college research paper. It is not encyclopedic in the least. I know the multiple references has been brought up repeatedly, but it is the first impression the reader gets and reminds me significantly of the introductory literature review in journal articles laying the foundation for the research presented. From there it goes on to laying out a definition of the main terms terms. Following this, it applies those terms to the topic. This smells highly of Original Research. I will attempt to highlight some of the statements that suggest that it is the case. Statement one is akin to laying the foundation of original research: defining the terms. Encyclopedia articles are not responsible for defining terms. Wikipedia is especially useful in that you can simply link them. The whole section of defining terms should be removed and simply have the links evolution, fact, and theory present in the introduction. Statement 2 would simply be left out of an encyclopedic article. Its presence gives [me] the impression that the attitude of the author is to try to clarify something based on his own research. Furthermore, he is using a table he compiled to illustrate a point he is trying to make. It is not a table of data or a table compiled in some other source, both of which would not be original research. This, however, is highly suspect. Statement 3 is also something you would typically find in a poorly written college research paper, not in an encyclopedia. Instead of ever referring to an actual incidence of the fact/theory discussion, the writer(s) of this article refer to several sources, some which claim each perspective, but none which critique each perspective or the debate surrounding them. The writer(s) of this article took that task on themselves, which makes this article Original Research. I do not know whether the article should be deleted or not, but it needs a COMPLETE rewrite. This is horrible for Wikipedia standards. The content may be fine and draw good conclusions, but that is irrelevant. It does not belong in its current state. BobertWABC (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Before assessing the evidence it is essential to have a clear understanding of what is meant by each of the terms "evolution", "fact" and "theory".
 * 2) This is illustrated in the table below.
 * 3) The confusion between "fact" and "theory" and the use of the word "evolution" is explored below.


 * In defence of my edits to this article, my view is that this is NOT original research. It is a genuine attempt to present different perspectives on this topic. In accordance with the No original research guide it is  'Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.'  I accept the style may be suggestive of original research and would welcome suggestions to improve it. However one of the reasons for the article is that words can mean different things in different contexts — it is therefore NOT sufficient simply to link to other definitions in Wikipedia. Different viewpoints must be presented without undue weight and sourced appropriately which is what the article attempts to do. I agree it would be better if we could actually find sources that explicitly discuss why Gould says evolution is a theory whereas Sagan says it is not. In the absence of such sources I suppose the (apparently contradictory) perspectives could be presented with no attempt at explanation. But there are plenty of sources that indicate this is a game of semantics. Maybe if more of these were added in the article you'd be happier?     — Axel147 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick remark: I got yelled at recently for doing the opposite thing: not putting enough definitions into an article, even definitions for which there are perfectly good wikilinks. Indeed, there is nothing original about assembling the relevant definitions in one place, and this can often be a great aid to the reader.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to make it clear that I am assuming good faith and do not believe the article was intended to be original research, but it does come across that way. I noticed there was an RfD and I read through the comments. Even those that supported keeping the article made references that implied OR. One referred to the article as a review, which in the field of publication is considered OR. Another supporter of keeping referred to the "author". There is nothing wrong with an encyclopedia article having only one (or one primary) author, but it should not be obvious. An encyclopedia should be a secondary source, that is, only referencing known facts and what others have said about the topic. Those cannot be authored. Allow me to provide some examples.
 * I could write an encyclopedic article about how the biblical book of Ecclesiastes was written in response to the writings of classic Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. I could provide numerous sources that purport that the manuscript was written between 50 and 100 years following the writings of Plato and Aristotle. I could then provide numerous sources that catalog the topics written by the philosophers, and other sources cataloging the topics of Ecclesiastes. I could create a table comparing how they each covered all the same topics and drew nearly all the same conclusions with the exception of wisdom and life's purpose. It would be well sourced, factual, and informative...and OR. Unless I am sourcing people that make the claim that Ecclesiastes was written in direct response to the writings of Plato and Aristotle, it is OR.
 * An example of doing this that is not OR would be the claim that the manuscript translated as Eaters of the Dead (now popularized as The 13th Warrior) tells the same tale as the folklore Beowulf. When I first read the two (long before Eaters of the Dead was rewritten as The 13th Warrior), that was the impression I got. Now, however, several people have written on exactly that topic. I could write an encyclopedic article about the similarities of the two, but I would have to only use similarities that other sources have already claimed. Introducing a similarity that I see that is not elsewhere in print is OR.
 * So you are right. The article would be much improved if you could find sources that attempt to explain why certain people treat evolution as fact and others treat it as theory (and others as fiction). The only definitions that would be appropriate to include would be those of the original authors that tackle these discrepancies. As it stands, however, you provide your own definitions (not yours in the sense that you thought them up, but yours in the sense that you found definitions that could be applied to this topic...just as you would any essay that would constitute OR), you assemble your own tables to illustrate a point or make comparisons rather than display data, and you never source anyone who has attempted to explore this topic.
 * I hope this helps some. I'm afraid that the article would need some massive reworking before I could view it as encyclopedic, but apparently most people disagree with me. If what I'm saying makes sense, I would be glad to give input as you change the article, but I'm not going to throw a fit or anything if nothing changes. The predicted outcome for Wikipedia was death through apathy of the best contributors due to the superior numbers of those less conscientious. Using WP:SNOW as a reason for speedy-keep I think is an example. By not demanding higher standards, those that want the best finally throw up their hands and return their lives to more productive tasks. Sorry, another topic for another time. If you would like any assistance in reworking, drop a note on my talk page as I am not on the wiki very frequently. Cheers and good luck. BobertWABC (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly let me say I have only added to the article since the RfD and I am not the author refered to. Yes, I agree that it is possible to gather genuine data and present it in a way that suggests particular conclusions, and that this could amount to OR. More references to sources explaning the confusion rather than mere assertions that evolution is or is not theory would be better. Some are already included and I have added another the directly discusses the debate. All 3 definitions are identified as part of the confusion. Please could you say specifically which conclusions you feel are OR and then the authors can address by sourcing better or removing etc. — Axel147 (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You might have misunderstood. I am referring to the construction, not the conclusions, as being OR. I see certain things that constitute OR, even without any assertions. For example, I really like the table comparing gravity and evolution. It really explains the terminology well and would be very useful in a textbook. Unfortunately, it is OR (or would be in the field of publishing). Unless the table was copied from a book or website, or the concept was previously written and the table only summed up what that person wrote, it is OR. If you found a single source that did exactly what this table did using the same examples of gravity and evolution and included that source in the article, the table would not be OR. Does this clarify things at all? An encyclopedia should not generate this sort of stuff, even though I really think it is useful and informative. An encyclopedia should only report when someone else has generated it.
 * In general, the whole article seems like it does the same thing as that table. It brings in a lot of information to clear up a debate, the thesis being that the disagreements over what to call evolution arise from teminology. I expect (and believe that you may have) that the thesis can be sourced. However, the entire article needs to be sourced using sources (preferably exclusively) that make that exact same claim (or some counter claim). I suspect that it would make for a very short article and would be more appropriate as a sub-section on the main page of evolution. I could be wrong. I hope that clears up what I mean by OR. BobertWABC (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Page serves no purpose
I think that this page is a pure 'argument' page and is not at all encyclopedic. It has obviously been started by someone who was not getting their own way on a 'main' page. I suggest it is deleted.86.133.176.101 (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thsnk you for showing an interest in this page. The idea you suggest has already been considered and rejected. . dave souza, talk 19:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, then perhaps it might be an idea to try to agree on what the purpose of the page is.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I still believe that the page should be deleted. The argument is silly. No physicist would claim that GR is a 'fact', it is a theory with an enormous body of experimental support covering a very wide range of conditions; evolution is the same. The attempt to use the word 'fact' to refer to evolution degrades science and reduces the argument against crackpot religious theories to a pointless philosophical discussion about the meaning of words. Evolution is a theory with a vast body of experimental support which no other theory comes close to matching. That is the only way to put it.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry this statement makes no sesnse and is not helpful. If you want to make such statements, please provide a reliable source. Otherwise it is just original research and has no place in Wikipedia.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 17:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have said before "fact" and "theory" are not necessarily mutually exclusive: this is a terminological misunderstanding. This creationist correctly identifies this:
 *  'There is a widespread misconception that good theories grow up to be facts and that the really good ones finally become laws. But these three categories of scientific description are neither directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law -- all at the same time! ' Is Evolution Fact Theory or Law by David Menton
 * "Fact" is routinely applied to the following:
 * Dinasaurs existed
 * Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system
 * The sun is hotter than the earth
 * Lights travels slower through air than through a vacuum
 * Combusting methane in air produces water vapour and carbon dioxide
 * Silver is a better conductor of electricity than copper
 * Using it for statements such as "humans and monkeys are cousins" is no different and in no way degrades science. — Axel147 (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about the use of words here. As I said, no physicist would describe general relativity (GR) or any theory of physics as a fact even though they may be better experimental evidence for it than there is for one of the examples that you have given. In non-scientific use the word 'fact' is used for something about which we have a very high degree of confidence. As this discussion is essentially about science, my suggestion is that it is more scientific to use the word 'theory' when talking about evolution. If some people take this to mean that it is in any reasonable doubt that is unfortunate but ranting on that it is a 'fact' is not, in my opinion, the way to deal with dissenters even if they deliberately play on the meaning of 'theory'. On that basis, this page, as it is, serves no purpose. Perhaps it should be called, 'How confident is the scientific community in the theory of evolution?'Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not your suggestion that counts — that would be original research. The article explains the issue is partly down to use of words. The reality is that biologists almost universally describe evolution as "fact". That is stated in the article and heavily referenced. If physicists use "fact" differently it makes no difference.


 * GTR is a "theory" on account of its complexity, abstract nature and immense explanatory and predictive power. By contrast evolutionary claims such as 'man and monkey are cousins' are far simpler, far more obvious. Only when "evolution" is used to include mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer etc. does it take on a similar complexity and capacity to explain different classes of observations and merit the word "theory". — Axel147 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand where you are coming from, there are plenty of crackpots in physics who use similar tactics to the evolution crackpots, basically trying to give the illusion that they are scientific and rational but actually spouting complete nonsense. However, I still think that the best approach is not to overstate your case.  Shouting 'fact, fact, fact' is, in my opinion, doing just that.  What is a fact and what is not is a philosophical issue with no definite answer and if you start down that road you are easily drawn into pointless side arguments by the pseudoscientists.  Stick to what is clear, the evidence for the theory of evolution.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of the word 'fact' is fine when it is immediately followed up with a definition, as in the recent reversion by Teapotgeorge - in the title of the article this is not the case.Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion
Why not have a page comparing scientific evidence for different theories for the origin of the species. This would be a far better way of doing things than the current page with its "yes it is/ no it is't" approach. Maybe with a summary table along the lines of:

Evolution - For, Against

Intelligent design - For, against

Creation - ...

Having been involved in an edit war over a table for a completely different topic I thing we should agree some rules such as: single (reasonable) sentence statements; only arguments for in the 'for' column; only generally accepted scientific evidence.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We could do that, but there is no scientific evidence for ID or Creation, so it would be a rather useless table of information. And of course, there are literally millions of articles and data supporting Modern Evolutionary synthesis.  I don't think we have the space.  And creationists might not think it's fair, so keeping the article balanced in its current state is probably best.  It's a great idea however, because it would be so clear. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * <ec> Just to point out a common misstatement, it's "the origin of species" not "the origin of the species", and in any event evolution explains a lot more than that. There is no scientific evidence for creation / intelligent design and the supernatural is inherently outwith science other than debunking of any testable claims, which has happened. The standard creationist model of "if evolution is untrue, then creation is true" has been tested in court and repeatedly rejected. . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion
How about keeping some of the supporting statements from the anti-evolutionists (AE) but adding the reasons that they are not valid. This may appear to give some credence to the AE but it may be better to address the issues directly. Otherwise we may be giving the impression to some readers that there is something to hide. I know it is frustrating and somewhat un-encyclopedic but it is the kind of thing that has been done on some web sites, to refute the moon landing conspiracy and anti-relativity crackpots, for example. Otherwise we get claims of, 'things the evolutionists won't let you say'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds like Objections to evolution article, unless I am misunderstanding you. Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is quite close. This does seem to confirm my original suggestion that this article is redundant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. You misunderstand what this article is about. Doug Weller (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me.Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To explain that "theory" used in the scientific sense does not mean "theory" in the colloquial/vernacular as "guess" or "something you dreamt up while you were 10 and watching clouds", and that "fact" and "theory" are not mutually exclusive. It is an entire article because it's a rather common misconception. Knight of BAAWA (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand - and agree with you - but an article on evolution is not the place to make that point. It is a general point which applies equally to the theory of relativity (where I have seen the same, 'but it is only a theory') and many other theories where there are people who do not accept it.  I have to admit that I am not sure how to deal with this common misconception but I suspect that to some degree it is a lost cause, there will always be some people who will never get it and even Wikipedia will never be able to convince them.  Most people just need a gentle explanation and they get the picture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not an article on evolution per se; it's an article about a common misconception about evolution. Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's remember that this article is as much socio-political as it is scientific. I've also heard the point about the Theory of Relativity, but in general, no one is trying to push a POV in schools, government and in Wikipedia (which sometimes reflects modern culture).  The reason why this article is specific about Evolution is that noise level with the Theory of Evolution is so much larger than other scientific theories.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 02:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The point about theories is a general one. I do not think that it is a good idea to explain a general point in an article concerned with a specific application of that point (I hope that makes sense).  It can then look as though we are using 'theory' in a special way when referring to evolution (which of course we are not). I am just wondering whether tub thumping (however justified it may be) is the best way to deal with this situation.  I think that there will be mainly those readers who are smart enough to understand what is meant by a 'well established theory' and who will need no further explanation, and those who do not get it and probably never will.  For the few in the middle, I wonder if more poeple will be persuaded against evolution by the tone of the article as will be persuaded for it by its logic Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that you move from the general to the particular, and put proposals for specific improvements forward on this talk page, with suggested wording. Altenately, you may prefer to make small edits, well supported by citations from secondary sources giving a critical analysis of the AE arguments. However, there seem to be as many complaints about that sort of claim/rebuttal format as there are about tone, so such changes are likely to be contested. . . dave souza, talk 19:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to reply to Martin, but I see Knight of BAAWA has already said what I would have said. Doug Weller (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not intend to edit this page, I came here in response to the Request for Comment and I have made my comment. I will leave it up to the regulars to take on board what I have said or to ignore me, as they see fit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article is 'tub-thumping'. It certainly tries to present the different uses in a measured way with appropriate weight. What are your specific criticisms of the tone? I agree with Orangemarlin who says the article is  'as much socio-political as it is scientific' . Some evolutionists say evolution is a theory while others say it's not. This apparent contradiction needs to be understood and has no parallel in physics' literature. I think the reason for the entire confusion is that evolutionists have been bending over backwards to try to make the position clear for creationists but unfortunately they've been bending in different directions. The non scientific use of the word theory is easiest to sort out, while the different uses of evolution is a bit more subtle. For the confusion over "fact" I blame Gould in particular — it doesn't seem clear from his writings whether he regards the statement "man and monkeys are cousins" as fact in the sense of "the world's data" or "a proposition affirmed to such a high degree it would perverse to withhold provisional ascent."  The audience is not only creationists but also evolutionists who have heard evolution described as fact not theory etc. — Axel147 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't use the word "evolutionist". It gives away your POV pretty clearly, and it is not a term that anyone uses except for neo-creationists.  Scientists, the preferred term, are pretty clear it is a theory, with little discussion of that point.  This article is here to describe the difference between what a scientist thinks is a theory, and how the lay public uses the term.  This has become a controversy, and nothing else.  The audience for this article is really creationists and those confused by the creationist terminologies and arguments.  For scientists, this article is a gigantic, "yeah we know that, let's move on."   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like the word "evolutionist" either but thought it was suitable shorthand for "a person who supports the theory of evolution" on this discussion page. For the record I am a scientist and an atheist. I do not agree that the purpose of this article is purely to clear up simple confusion between the scientific community and layperson use of the word "theory" even though I think that is what the original author(s) intended. Actually the difference is probably less than some would like to admit. As Casey Luskin pointed out (in the article notes) the phrase "new theory" is often seen in scientific journals. This suggests that "well established" is not built into the definition otherwise "new theory" would be a contradiction in terms. Many scientists have a poor grasp of epistemology and the scientific method and there certainly seems some uncertainly as to whether facts and theories are "rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty". They are not. They are different but some people (and I think this includes the original authors of this article) have mistakenly been led to the conclusion that the makes them mutually exclusive. They are not this either. It is perfectly fine for one and the same "framework of interconnected statements" to be labeled fact as well as theory because the two terms are different ways of classifying scientific propositions. "Fact" tells us how well it is substantiated with evidence whereas "theory" tells us about it's explanatory and predictive power. Connected with this is a theory's size or complexity. The claim "man and monkeys are cousins" is not a theory but why? The answer is quite independent of whether it is true or whether it's a "fact". "Man and monkey are cousins" is by itself not a theory simply because it does not qualify as a body of interconnected statements that explain something. It is a single statement. I think part of the purpose of the article is to make these points. — Axel147 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you are wasting your time Orange Marlin .  One thing that I do have considerable experience of is arguing with crackpots (mainly on usenet sci.physics.relativity) and not one of them has ever changed his mind.  Whatever you say, however carefully you explain the situation, whatever experimental results you quote, they stick to their irrational crackpot guns.  Add to that the religious element and it is clear to me that any article aimed at creationists is completely pointless. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect there are a lot of non-Creationists who would find the article useful. Doug Weller (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell me this then. Is this article about the meaning of 'theory' in science in general, as has been suggested above, or is it about some special meaning of the word 'theory' when applied to evolution? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Theory" is not being used any differently from in the rest of science. But as Filll has pointed out these words are polysemes and so the meaning of composite phrases such as "theory of evolution" need spelling out. — Axel147 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is already a link from the word 'theories' in the main evolution article to the article theory, which explains in great detail what the word means in a scientific context. Anyone who actually wants to know about the theory of evolution can find out all about it, including its status, from those articles.  Anyone who cannot or will not do that is probably a lost cause.Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Most definitely not. Linking to that article does not clear up whether "the theory of evolution" incorporates speciation, natural selection, genetic drift. Does it imply that man and monkey are cousins, that we have descended from a common ancester, or does it only go so far as specifying a common ancestral gene pool etc? Is lateral gene transfer part of theory? In my opinion the article is not particularly directed to creationists who I agree may be "a lost cause". But in any case Wikipedia should inform not persuade. Confusion over the meaning of the word theory is the easiest problem to resolve. Meanings "fact " and "evolution" are slightly more nuanced. I think it is at least as important to document the apparent contradictions between scientists. — Axel147 (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What is evolution?
Continued from the section above.

Axel147, is this the point that you are trying to make? In other words are you expecting this page to say what exactly is included in the well accepted theory of evolution and what is more speculative? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the article is intended to clarify some of the following, by informing not persuading:
 * What is generally meant when evolutionary biologists say "evolution is a fact"
 * What is generally meant when evolutionary biologists say "evolution is a theory"
 * Why some evolutionary biologists say "evolution is both theory and fact" while others prefer to say "evolution is a fact, not a theory"
 * Whether there is any difference is scientific vs. layperson vs. creationist use of the terms. If so what?
 * Whether creationists accept evolution as either fact or theory? If not what is the point of disagreement? — Axel147 (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your questions show why use of the word 'fact' in a scientific context is best avoided, since it creates a vast, unnecessary, and unwelcome, philosophical debate on the meaning of words.

For example, I am not sure whether you are asserting in your first three questions that there is some disagreement between groups of evolutionary biologists as to the status of evolution. There may be some disagreement, but this is only about use of the word 'fact'; a semantic debate unconnected with biology.

Regarding your fourth question, different people do use terms in different ways and, again, 'fact' is a word used differently by different people.

Your last question, in my opinion, revolves around the meaning of words again. It is quite clear that evolutionary biologists agree substantially on the status of evolution but creationists hold a completely different view. A debate over the use of the word 'fact' will do nothing to clear up this issue.

If your questions represent the consensus view on what this page is about then my advice is to delete the page. It serves no purpose except to add fuel to an already blazing fire. Scientists should stick rigidly to statements along the lines of, 'evolution is a very well established theory...', and,'evolution is the only scientifically accepted theory...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sticking rigidly to statements like that would be silly - because evolution is also a fact (observed in the laboratory, and in the field) - and, up to a point (the point where "micro" becomes "macro"), it is even acepted as such by "creationists". And the whole point of the article is to demonstrate how evolution fits both into fact and into theory. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 10:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only repeat that, in my opinion, the word 'fact' is unscientific and effectively meaningless, because it means different things to different people. Of course evolution has been observed, both in the laboratory and in the field, that is why it is a well established theory and the only theory accepted by biologists.  I cannot see what the word 'fact' adds to this position.  Are you saying that it is 100% certain?  Nothing is 100% certain - the sun rising, gravity, the earth being round - none of these is 100% certain, maybe gravity will stop tomorrow, who knows?  I have spent many years arguing with relativity crackpots and one thing that I have learned is not to overstate your case because, if you do this, you leave legitimate loopholes in your argument which the smarter crackpots will atack publicly and make you look silly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're arguing that gravity isn't a fact, you're in for a fall..... dave souza, talk 17:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Earth Rotates Round the Sun: Fact?
Using the Earth rotating round the Sun as an example of a fact is an unfortunate choice. Mechanically, a star-planet combination rotates round its combined centre of gravity: it is no more true to say that the plantet rotates around the star than that the star rotates round the planet; it just happens that the distance of the centre of gravity of the star from the combined centre of gravity is less than the distance of the centre of gravity of the planet from the combined centre of gravity. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes of course you're right, but that's often quoted. The "earth rotating round the sun" is a kind of shorthand for the Copernican heliocentric model of the solar system. — Axel147 (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Using anything as an example of a fact is an unfortunate choice. That is why it is best not to use this word in a scientific context.Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is of course slightly confused. Using Newtonian mechanics, the planets and the star all execute elliptical paths which each share one co-located focal point, drawn from one of the two foci of each of these ellipses, at the center of mass of the star system. This is roughly correct  in the inertial frame of the star system, at least approximately, as can be demonstrated by numerical solutions of the classical many body problem represented by this sort of ephemeris calculation. However, given the r**-3 and higher order terms that will be present in a GR solution to this celestial mechanics problem, this is only a crude approximation. The bit about the relative size of the semimajor axes of these ellipses presupposes a star system like our own, which we now know is not necessarily representative. It is pretty tiresome when people who know almost absolutely nothing come on these pages to rant, however...--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 00:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what the above has to do with anything. The word 'fact' has little currency in physics.  You are describing a mixture of observations and well-established theory.  If there is any ranting it is being done in the article, as others have already said.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am putting you on notice that you are not dealing with rank amateurs here. And I have read two or three hundred mainstream scientific discussions of this matter, including the publications of the National Academy of Sciences, which agree with my position and that position is also roughly represented in the article itself.


 * 'Putting me on notice' what does that mean? Perhaps you could tell me this, then I could make some more constructive comments.  At whom is this article aimed?  What is the point it is trying to make (or information it is trying to inform people of)?Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, thanks to assorted "drive by" editors who mess up the articles we have, this article is not a great example of Wikipedia writing. I am trying to rewrite it and I have some sandbox versions and material. However, it is an unpleasant and thankless task, frankly. So trying to generate "fights" like this when they are contrary to the material in the WP:RS is counterproductive. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I trust that you are not referring to me - I have made no edits. Also remember there was an RFC for this article.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the use of the word "fact" in a scientific context has been well established for several centuries. You might feel like arguing with the NAS, for example. But we are not here to let you weigh in such matters, but to provide a reference work. So go argue with someone else. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 00:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How could I provide references to verify that 'fact' is not a word much used by physicists.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask you to do so. However, if you can find them, they would be welcome here.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 18:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that it's relevant to the philosophical issues, but this discussion got off on the wrong foot, word-wise. The earth rotates round the sun?  Definitely not.  The earth rotates on its axis; it revolves around the sun.  Hertz1888 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Several suggestions
Opinion: the topic doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. Why not abridge it and integrate it into an existing article on evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy are both good candidates.

As it stands, the article has a number of problems. There are numerous (albeit minor) grammatical errors, and the tone is awkward -- a distinct sense of desperation pervades the article's language and structure, as if the authors have tried to anticipate every possible objection to its contents. This kind of defensive writing is unnecessary (and unencyclopedic). Six or seven references is an overly large number; refer to any of the articles linked on Wikipedia's main page for comparison. Two or three references are enough. Also, works with titles such as "Speak Out Against The New Right" should be avoided when attempting to validate a scientific idea: these writings invite accusations of bias, and are clearly not scholarly in character.

On a related note, and as a reminder, it's worth pointing out that authorship on Wikipedia is not synonomous with ownership. The responses by some of this article's editors to various postings made previously indicate a disappointingly flippant attitude. The article is clearly in need of work, and some worthy suggestions have been made. Egos should not stand as an impediment to progress.Kpn engin (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is a response to numerous main page and talk page edits on evolution related topics, usually along the lines of "evolution is only a theory not a fact". Clearly there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of a scientific theory in the community, especially as it relates to evolution, and therefore the need for this article. You are welcome to try and improve it though. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are numerous (albeit minor) grammatical errors, and the tone is awkward then by all means edit those out. Alternatively if there are more "fundamental" issues, then start with specific issues here on this talk page, and then as a collaborative group, we can work through each of them. Shot info (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Great article ... keep it
I read the discussion above, and I notice repeated attempts to delete it or tag it POV.

But this article serves an essential purpose: there is a tremendous amount of discussion initiated by creationists that question evoluiton by asserting that "evolution is just a theory". That assertion is contained in literally thousands of Christian books and websites. Addressing that concern would, ideally, be a minor paragraph in the Evolution article, but history has shown that a tremendous amount of debate revolves around it. So, rather than bog down the Evolution article, it is sensible and appropriate to have a dedicated article focused on the theory vs. fact topic.

For that reason, this article serves a valuable purpose: namely answering the oft-asked question "is evolution just a theory, and if it is, doesnt that make creationism equally valid?". --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Noleander. If anyone tries to delete it or tag it, there's about 500-1000 science editors who watch the article and will stand up to POV pushes.  It's been quiet for a while anyways.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thinning the citations in the lead
I share the opinion that the (currently) seven citation links in the lead are too many. I clicked all of them to see where they point. I suggest we remove every link to an ISBN number, since clicking it only leads to an opportunity to search for places to buy the book. I also suggest we remove the link to H. J. Muller (1959) "...there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea." because it's 50 years old and contradicts with the tenets of this article and with the link to Stephen Jay Gould (1981) "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.". I also suggest we remove the link to Laurence Moran (1999) because the relevant parts of that article are direct quotes from the Stephen J. Gould (1981) article and so are redundant. The citation to Stephen J. Gould (1981) is sufficient to provide an example of the distinction between terms that is the subject of this wikipedia article; the other citations can all go away without loss of weight to the lead. -- Another Stickler (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Without getting into detail, and I'd like to see each case carefully reviewed before removing citations, the provision of ISBN numbers is useful as it leads to library information as well as publishers and booksellers information giving detail of the book, and often to free access ro some of the book. It's a normal part of citation, and has its uses. . dave souza, talk 09:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ISBN references are certainly helpful in a "for further study" section, but not as in-line pointers to text. In fact, they slow the reader down. The ISBN links quickly multiply when clicked. I did not follow each of the many results for each of the ISBN numbers. I gave up after the first few took me to booksellers with no text (which reminds me, doesn't wikipedia have some sort of policy against linking to commercial sites?). If indeed there are some in there that do eventually lead to free, relevant text, and that text is not redundant with the Gould article which is free, relevant, full text, and linked to directly, I suggest we short cut those links right to the page with the text, bypassing the search page, so that so the new reader is not forced to duplicate the same steps and potentially gives up before finding any text. Do you agree we should take out the (contradictory) Muller and (redundant) Moran (after waiting a few days for objections)? -- Another Stickler (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is not a theory. Evolutionary theory is a theory.
"Evolution" (one word only) is not a theory. Evolution (one word only) is a fact. "The Theory of Evolution" (four words) is a theory. "Evolutionary Theory" (two words) is a theory. People may claim "evolution is a theory" when throwing volleys across the aisle but when biologists actually talk and write about the theory, they never name it "evolution" (one word only), they use one of the longer phrases above or even other phrases altogether that are handles for the subjects within evolutionary theory, such as "genetic drift", "kin selection", etc. They never say "evolution explains evolution", which would be true if evolution (one word) were a theory. The phrase "evolution is both theory and fact" creates its own problems by implying that one term simultaneously has two meanings when the two meaning are not simultaneously compatible--it must mean one or the other at any given usage. It's really two terms which are homonyms, and one of them is a lazy nickname for a multi-word phrase. A lot of this misunderstanding would be cleared up if we just stopped the lazy speak and said "evolutionary theory" when we meant it. There can be no doubt in the meaning of "evolution is a fact and evolutionary theory is a theory". I think this article should clear that up a little better, instead of inviting people to fall in the intellectual pot hole so we can laugh at their misinterpretation of an ambiguous phrase. I suggest inserting an adjective in the lead so that "This statement..." becomes "This unfortunate statement...", or "This potentially confusing statement...", or something else that immediately invites deeper examination. -- Another Stickler (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point! I agree with almost everything you say. But rather than just dropping in "unfortunate" or "potentialy confusing", maybe the solution would be to insert something into the lead to the effect that the word evolution may be used either to refer to the observed fact of evolution, or as a shorthand for the theory of evolution. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 10:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes on the "used as a shorthand" string. It should be added too. -- Another Stickler (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the two meanings cannot be simultaneously compatible (and so do others which is part of the whole semantic confusion). I have made this point before in this talk. In my opinion just as bananas may be simultaneously yellow and edible one and the same proposition may be simultaneously 'affirmed to such a high degree that it would be perverse to withhold one's provisional assent' i.e. fact and capable of explaining and interpreting other observations i.e. theory. I deliberately use Gouldian language as I think he possibly creates confusion in this area. Just because being yellow and being edible are 'different things' this does not imply it is impossible for a banana to be both of these things at the same time. — Axel147 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your analogy is inappropriate because of its form; "edible yellow banana" is one noun with two adjectives while "evolution" and "evolution" are two nouns. The analogy is broken by testing the same construction, producing the nonsensical "theoretical factual evolution". -- Another Stickler (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure. The construction you present certainly sounds strange. But maybe this is because we can imagine an inedible green banana. It sounds like you are trying to distinguish one form of evolution from a different kind of evolution - otherwise the qualification wouldn't be necessary. But it is not clear to me what the two kinds are (even though I agree the word evolution is used for a variety of different shorthands). — Axel147 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The two meanings of "evolution" are theory and fact. If they were simultaneously compatible, "theoretical factual evolution" would make sense. I don't think the two meanings can even be used in the same sentence, otherwise "evolution explains evolution" would make sense. -- Another Stickler (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of restored sentence
The article is not about a particular statement, but is about the consensus view among biologists that evolution is both a theory and a fact. I have restored the original consensus version of the lead sentence, pending further discussion on what the scope of this article should be. If indeed the article is about the statement itself, as a direct quote, then I suppose it makes sense to attribute it as a quote in the first paragraph (like Ich bin ein Berliner). However, that is not the impression I get on reading this version of the lead. Starting the article with the phrase in quotations appears to be a rhetorical device to cast some doubt on the statement, and seems to be inappropriate for an article, both in intent and tone. My earlier edit was an attempt to fix what I perceived as an inappropriate tone. However, it was quickly reverted with the edit summary: "Undone. It's precisely that phrase that this article is about. This is not an article about evolution. It's about terminological distinction and unintentional confusion." I don't see how my edit changes in any substantive way the intention of the preceding version. But it did do away with what seemed to be a rather stylized rhetorical construction of starting an article with an (unattributed) quotation, which has a polemic rather than encyclopedic feel to it. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Muller and Gould quotes are contradictory
What do we do with this? These are cited or directly quoted in the article:

"Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea." -- H. J. Muller (1959)

"And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty." -- Stephen Jay Gould (1981)

-- Another Stickler (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Definitely contradictory (even allowing for the fact they may be slightly out of context). I strongly dislike both. The difference between hypothesis, theory and fact is surely more than just probability so Muller is simply wrong. Gould causes great confusion by falsely implying fact and theory are automatically mutually exclusive which is also wrong in my opinion. In Gould's simplified view it seems he has just a two tier system with observations as facts and everything else theory to explain them. In practice of course we use a cascading system of explanation with new theories founded on established ones, with established ones accepted as fact. The whole article is about contradictions so it's difficult to remove either quote if they give appropriate weight to real opinion out there. — Axel147 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The webpage in the Muller citation doesn't look reliable. I'm for removing the Muller citation unless someone can provide a better source. -- Another Stickler (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also for replacing Muller's quotation - but as I've said before I don't like Gould attempts at squaring the circle. He says facts are the world's data in one place. Then he says facts are propositions affirmed to such a degree it would be perverse to withhold provisional ascent. In other words he comes perilously close to contradicting himself especially when these remarks are removed from context. I think it would be a good idea to quote a 3rd person. Personally I think Futyuma gets it right but he is already used in the article. Here is an abridged quote from him ' Any statement in science, then, should be understood as a HYPOTHESIS—a statement of what might be true. Some hypotheses are so well supported that we consider them to be facts. .... Quantum theory and the theory of plate tectonics are not mere speculations or opinions, nor are they even well-supported hypotheses. Each is an elaborate scheme of interconnected ideas. '. In other words fact says something about the degree of certainty we have in a proposition. And the distinction between hypothesis and theory essentially complexity/scope rather than probability. — Axel147 (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's becoming obvious that the terms have multiple conflicting definitions. This is the nature of the evolution of language I suppose. One would like to think that science is immune, but of course it isn't. We need to note all of the meanings in use, distinguish them, and point out their conflicts. Choosing one meaning as correct would be non-encyclopedic arrogance. I want to remove the Muller quote because I don't trust the citation, not because it's contradictory. If anyone contributes a reliable source, I think it should be brought in again. -- Another Stickler (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Real Problem

 * The real problem here is that these disagreements really stem from a lack of understanding of epistemology. Truth and verifiability are related concepts, but their meanings are contingent on the system in which they are used.  Hence, a word like "fact" may indicate truth of a certain class of propositions (observations here), but might be inappropriate for propositions that are concepts (the theory of evolution here) because using "fact" in either sense presupposes the truth of the axiomatic concepts (the theory of evolution here), so saying that the theory is a "fact" is tautological within the system and senseless without.  The following explanation should illuminate the problem, and does not weaken any substantive claims within the section, but offers a better procedural understanding of how to state the claims that it appears the article is trying to make.
 * Verifiability, if taken to mean the ability of something to be proved in the strong sense (i.e. synthetically in the Kantian sense), is senseless if first principles cannot be known to be true--even if you say axioms of a system are verifiable empirically, you are really saying either: 1. You are including another axiom in the system, specifically the axiom that states "observation implies existence (in the sense of first order logic)," or 2. That the physical world can be used as a meta theory for the theory to be "verified," but that meta theory must contain the axiom from "1." and will suffer the same defects as the original system--i.e. synthetic verification in the strong sense succumbs to infinite regression.  Hence, if we really want to mean anything by the term, we have to mean it in the weak deductive sense, or the weak probabilistic sense.  If it is in the weak deductive sense, we take a set of premises to be absolutely true (as in mathematics), and show that they deductively (using rules of inference and system axioms) entail the truth of a conclusion, where we say that the conclusion is verifiable.  If it is in the weak probabilistic sense (as in the sciences), then a conclusion is verifiable to the degree that, with addition of premises (observations taken as true), the long run probability of the conclusion is always increased (i.e. the limit of probability, as the number of premises approaches infinity, is 1 (deductively true).  The probabilistic sense of verifiability is basically saying that a conclusion is verifiable if, once all relevant knowledge has been accumulated, it is deductively provable.  If a probabilistic system allows for deductively undecidable conclusions once all relevant knowledge is accumulated, we might say that verifiability within that system is an even weaker version (weak, weak probabilistic verifiability), and a conclusion is verifiable if, once all relevant knowledge is accumulated, it is the most probable conclusion.  In any sense but the strong sense, verifiability is analytic in the Kantian sense (i.e. conclusions are contingent on the truth of the axioms of the system in which it is verifiable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.155.100 (talk • contribs)

I think you are confused. When the folks above are talking about "verifiability", they mean a certain Wikipedia policy by that name. They are not engaging in a discussion of epistemology. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Please read Verifiability, a site policy that dictates article contents. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always believed in evolution and still do because it is the most logical and or scientific when possible. After college I noticed some unscientific or illogical arguments in Darwin's model and when I try to confront them it's not allowed, mainly on wiki pages. This must be confronted. Also evolution must be changed to Darwinian evolution because even if it were the only totally scientific theory people must distinguish. There is something called Vedic evolution. Gravity is called Newtonian gravity and is 99% right on on everyday Earth bound standards, but in the majority of the universe it fails and Einstein's laws of reltivity take over. Just because of a Christian-Darwin debate we must not falter on correct labeling.

Also can you make it clear how to create a talk page and fix these kinds of things so that actions are not limited to those who are constantly on wikipedia?Sfvace (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of polls
The inclusion of polls in this article has already been discussed in the talk page archives. I always notice that there is a particular poll that those with a creationist agenda always want to push into articles about evolution: the "51% of Americans think God created humans in their present form" figure. Now, as I recall, there were many such polls available at some time or another, and this is by far the highest. The same cited CBS poll indicates that 67% of Americans believe that creation and evolution are compatible. I find the poll suspect to begin with, since most other polls find that the largest group of Americans believe in theistic evolution, that is evolution that is "guided by God". See for instance the Gallup poll on this. Furthermore, where reliable polls exist in other countries, the numbers show greater credence in evolution in nearly every other country with the exception of Turkey. Finally, the subject of this article is not "polls about Creationists and their beliefs", and so the easiest way to comply with the neutral point of view policy and the no original research policy is simply to leave the poll out of it. Cheers, siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 03:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do think if polls are to be included, then we should say what they say, not what we might like them to say. I've edited the article to reflect that. But I can't see the point. Are we saying that if a majority of Americans have a problem with evolution, then evolution has a problem? That doesn't make sense. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This argument has also been advanced in the talk page of some related articles, that polling data does not constitute an objection to evolution. This is about "belief", rather than an objection to evolution, much less an informed objection. Moreover, the poll does not specifically address the fine distinction between theory and fact that should be upheld for the purposes of this article, whereas the other two objections do make this distinction.  I am at least going to replace the cited poll with one that talks about the theory versus fact distinction.  Although this is not as high profile as the CBS poll (or the Gallup poll, which is more detailed I believe), it is at least marginally relevant to the subject of the article.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 12:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No poll is perfect but we can see the general result; around 1/2 or more not believing in Darwinian evolution in full or to some degree. If this is such a problem why not include several of the most respected polls rather than censor out any and all polls? If it's not ok to use the whole U.S. of America as an example on this matter of "objects to evolution" why is there below this matter a state of Oklahoma case? Does this case represent the whole world in perfection? If it was a supreme case and federal than at best it would be equal to the poll of America as a whole! And if you're so worried about the poll being unfair or something, why not add the other polls you like so that the uptmost use of facts are provided rather than edit it out to some vague obviously anti creationist biased statement? "There are those who refuse to accept" style, or what ever the user changed it back to, where it kind of implies there are small small pesky disease of people who won't accept the flawless fact? Well I suggest you view the evolution vid on youtube.com/playitalready and leave your comments, you won't get censored there. The vid isn't the best but the links are, or else I'd be 100% Darwinist still and my upcoming book wouldn't argue against it at all. What ever, later.Sfvace (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

People I left "Some polls indicate that as many as 51% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form, however the same polls indicate that 67% believe it is possible to believe in both God and evolution" under Religion in the United States. enough petty conflicts just because there are more creationists in Saudi Arabia does not mean that one is better than the other its only Demographics, Now we must ask ourselves do the statistics belong under Evolution as theory and fact as well. I think Ill just stop commenting here. --Zaharous (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind inclusion of polls if they illustrate a point, but how is this one related to the heading it's under? No mention is made of a particular objection to the fact of evolution. I don't even think the "Objections..." section is needed, just as an "Evidence..." section isn't. It doesn't do anything to clear up the distinction between evolutionary fact and theory, which is the simple task of this increasingly bloated article. -- Another Stickler (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Silly Rabbit, 50% is not a majority, nobody said the tag should come down, and your replacement poll doesn't raise an "objection to the fact of evolution" so it doesn't belong in that subsection any more than the poll it replaced did. I move we delete the subsection. Who's with me? -- Another Stickler (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim it was an absolute majority. As the one who placed the tag, I also took it down.  But I can add it back if you want.  Finally, I'm not sure how you feel that this poll is equally irrelevant to the subject of the article.  One of the options (the 50% plurality/majority/whatever) was:
 * "Evolution is not just a theory, it is a fact."
 * This is clearly more relevant to the theory/fact subject of the article than the CBS poll, which addressed questions like whether God and evolution are compatible or whether God made humans in their present form.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I really don't feel that polls should be discussed here at all, since as you point out they don't actually point to an objection to the fact of evolution. However, if there is to be a poll, then it should at least be relevant to the distinction being made in this article.  The first poll was not.  I am fine with removing the poll altogether, as that was my original intention.  I have to think a bit about whether the entire section should be removed.  I am leaning towards agreeing with you, since "theory vs. fact" should probably be already addressed topically in Creation-evolution controversy.  Perhaps the existing content should be merged there?   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 13:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I think you got my point; neither poll should be included in the subsection since neither addresses an objection to the fact of evolution. Good research finding one with those terms in it though. The majority/plurality/50% issue is moot since the poll should go away, but just for clarity, the first sense of majority means more than half of the total, and plurality is an election term, so the raw number 50% is the most appropriate (and informative). I have no objection if you want to merge the subsection into Creation-evolution controversy as an alternative to deleting it. -- Another Stickler (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I have been against having polls (either poll) in the article from the very beginning. But since there seemed to be a contingent of editors keen on having a poll in the article, I was forced to settle for the current compromise.  See my initial two posts in this thread.  I did opt to replace the original poll, since I felt it was marginally related to the topic of the article, although of course as you say, not ideal.   Let's get rid of it entirely.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 20:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, with respect to the distinction between majority and plurality, I was not aware that plurality is exclusively an election term. And majority does not always refer to strictly more than half, if the vote is split several ways (see, for instance, the OED entry on majority).   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 21:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to delete the whole section and then I thought, "at least these examples illustrate the terminological confusion," then I thought "but we don't really need examples of confusion, we need examples of clarity,". I don't know what's best. Delete or not delete? OK. Delete. Right after I type this. -- Another Stickler (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to note for the chronology: I deleted the section, Orangemarlin undeleted it, then Silly rabbit took out the replacement poll. A balance has been achieved. I think the neutrality tag can be removed, and we'll be done (for now at least). Will you remove it Silly rabbit? -- Another Stickler (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all please refrain from strawman arguments. The poll said 51% do not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution as fact, not 50. 51 is majority, that is a fact. Second, this was more detailed and factual/bias "There are those who refuse to accept the fact..." line. It infers some sort of strange minority cult against Darwin's theory. The only solution is to leave this poll along with two other most authoratative and respected polls and leave a note claiming in the beginning "Though polls may vary, various respected polls such as..."

Do you really think real enycopedias operate this way? Well...there are so many polls and it makes Darwin's theory look bad so let us delete them all? I respected wikipedia a lot till these actions have been taken. Please fix this.

Deleting the whole section is WORSE. You can't censor scientific arguments. Not all people who argue against aspects of Darwin's concepts are creationists and if they do it is not all for creationist reasons. Religious arguments belongs with them. Leave the scientific objects in this scientific section. People aren't going to come to wikipedia to see someone push a totally one sided Darwinian evolution model. Sfvace (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When was the last time you looked at the section? First, I replaced the original utterly irrelevant (and badly skewed) poll with one that was marginally more relevant to the subject of the article vis-a-vis the distinction between theory and fact.  Then, as discussed above, consensus was reached that even this poll was not relevant.  Furthermore, there is some speculation that the section itself is not relevant to the article.  This article is about the meaning of fact and theory in the scientific method as they apply to evolution.  It is not a place where creation versus evolution polemic needs to be rehashed, since the article is not even about creationism.  See WP:NPOV/FAQ.  Finally, as I have told you repeatedly there is an article a large part of which is dedicated to the examination of polls.  If you have a poll that you would like to have on Wikipedia, that is probably the place to put it.  Not randomly inserted into some other article where it isn't even relevant to the subject under discussion.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 12:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the poll does not say that 51% of americans reject evolution. It says that 51% of "Americans think God created humans in their present form".  Grammatically speaking, that really doesn't mean much.  I think God created humans in their present form, but I do not think that He created them initially in their present form - he created humans in their present form by getting them there through use of evolution.  The poll is completely ambiguous and causes creationists and evolution-accepting theist grammar sticklers (like me) alike to answer in the affirmative.Farsight001 (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A joke
This page and the discussion that surrounds it makes wikipedia look a joke. It is packed with ideologues on both sides and should just be deleted. Evolution should have a page and creation science should have a page. While this may be a valuable debate, this page has no place in an encyclopaedia, the title of the article itself makes a claim which is clearly not neutral. Perhaps "Academic discussion of evolution as theory and fact" would work better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janamills (talk • contribs)
 * I wouldn't support a rename: it's not necessary and quite unwieldy. The discussion within the article takes great pains to elaborate upon notable scientific opinions on the subject. Perhaps you misread it as "Evolution is theory and fact"? &mdash; Scientizzle 17:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I get that the suggestion of a rename is a joke to make the point that too much discussion is in the article. I agree. We need to pare it down to the one encyclopedic value this article can possibly have, which is to explain that there are multiple meanings for "evolution". Simply deleting the article wouldn't conserve that value. It's very easy to drop a comment in the discussion page of a wikipedia article saying "this article sucks" or the equivalent, but keep in mind, it sucks because you haven't corrected it! Janamills, you need to get to work and start correcting it like the rest of us. -- Another Stickler (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * AS, sometimes you just should ignore certain editors. Janamills is clueless about science.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Objections to the fact of evolution - Irrelevant for this article
One could bring up a billion examples of how the theory and fact of evolution has been objected in the past, and none of them are relevant to this article that tries to explain; from a scientific viewpoint, why evolution is considered a fact and what a scientific theory is. Adding souch a section is clearly a biased edit becouse the Wikipedia Equal Validity claims that articles should not give equal validity to minority views, and in the scientific world, all contradictions to the evolutionary theory and fact are considered minority (and almost always biased) views. Read more about NPOV and equal validity here. Just becouse you don't like the evolutionary theory doesn't mean it's not a fact, sorry. I will now delete this section and please reply with a very good reason before reverting it back.

Just keep the objections in this, very relevant article, instead: Objections to evolution CooPs89 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always believed in evolution and still do because it is the most logical and or scientific when possible. After college I noticed some unscientific or illogical arguments in Darwin's model and when I try to confront them it's not allowed, mainly on wiki pages. This must be confronted. Also evolution must be changed to Darwinian evolution because even if it were the only totally scientific theory people must distinguish. There is something called Vedic evolution. Gravity is called Newtonian gravity and is 99% right on on everyday Earth bound standards, but in the majority of the universe it fails and Einstein's laws of reltivity take over. Just because of a Christian-Darwin debate we must not falter on correct labeling. Also can you make it clear how to create a talk page and fix these kinds of things so that actions are not limited to those who are constantly on wikipedia?Sfvace (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Darwin was wrong in places, aspects which have been well discussed and resolved in modern evolutionary theory which differs significantly from Darwin's writings while still incorporating natural selection as the main explanation, though not the only explanation, for adaptation and species diversity. If you want to add other issues to articles, you need verification from a reliable third-party source showing the significance of the issue, as your own research or opinion cannot be incorporated due to our no original research policy. . dave souza, talk 09:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "After college I noticed some unscientific or illogical arguments in Darwin's model and when I try to confront them it's not allowed, mainly on wiki pages. This must be confronted." Sorry Sfvace but your original claims and research does not belong here on wikipedia. If you want to debate the issue or enligten other with your ideas, do it in a forum. And when your idea changes the scientific consensus about evolution, I promise to be the first to type it down in this article.
 * CooPs89 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Supporting evidence for the fact of evolution -- also irrelevant to this article
Now we're getting somewhere. The article is about defining terms, not debating whether the terms apply. If we can remove the list of objections to the fact of evolution, we can also remove the list of supporting evidence for the fact of evolution. Surely there must be better places to collect those. This article has a small task; there's no need for it to be any larger than a few paragraphs. -- Another Stickler (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What "list of supporting evidence for the fact of evolution"? Also, when removing things from this article, please try to make sure that well cited information is fully covered elsewhere, or move it to an appropriate article. Thanks, dave souza, talk 09:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I made the title of this talk section mimic the title of the section above it as a rhetorical device to draw attention to that fact that fat can be removed symmetrically, but I actually meant that evidence that evolution is a theory can be removed along with evidence that it is a fact. The only evidence this article needs to keep is evidence that "evolution" (one word only) is used in literature with multiple meanings in different contexts, which certain sections do a good job of presenting. Other sections are off topic. The section "Evolution compared with gravity" is an argument that evolution is a fact. That's not necessary here. The section "Predictive power" is an argument that evolution is a theory. That's not necessary here either. -- Another Stickler (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In reply to both messages of Another Stickler, well, we can remove (and add) whatever we want, I'm sure everyone has noticed that and it nothing to do with anything. This article is about why the scientific consensus considers evolution as theory and fact, and what a theory and fact is. Having those two definitions here makes perfect sense (because that is what this article is about...). With your rhetoric, if something that applies to X is removed then everything that applies to the counter X should also be removed... without really explaining why, just stating that it could be done? I don't really get your point. CooPs89 (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Evolution compared with gravity should stay because it offers parallels between the two theories that help to illustrate the subject of the article. The Predictive power section probably does not need to be here. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC) "This article is about why the scientific consensus considers evolution as theory and fact" CooPs89, I don't think the article needs to explain why. That's done elsewhere already. It just needs to show that it's treated that way in the literature so people don't get confused. "and what a theory and fact is" CooPs89, it doesn't need to do that either. Each of those subjects already has its own main article, and is linked to from the first sentence of this article. -- Another Stickler (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Silly Rabbit, I think I get your point that gravity is fact-and-theory too so might serve as a good illustration, but it still reads like a defensive argument for why it's OK for evolution to be considered fact and theory. Compare that to the "Evolution as theory and fact in the literature" section which covers the literature and is cited. I'm not gonna hack and slash without some shared opinion though. Since you agree about the "Predictive power" section, I'd like to remove it from this article. I don't want to destroy the information though; people put time into researching those citations. What article do you think I can move it to instead? -- Another Stickler (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduction of fallacious material into the article
Dan8080 has introduced a large amount of WP:POV and often outright fallcious material into the article, and is now WP:EDITWARing to keep it there. Fallacies include: There are probably more fallacies in this piece of ludicrous creationist propaganda, but the above is more than enough reason for reverting it. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 06:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Micro-evolution is the idea that small-scale variations occur within a species population, and the changes which benefit survival and reproduction are propagated to succeeding generations." Microevolution is simply evolution (not mere variation) within a species, and is a fact not an idea, as it has been observed in laboratory and in the field.
 * "Unlike micro-evolution, the claims of macro-evolution remain unsubstantiated. No species has been observed evolving into another species." Speciation has likewise been observed in laboratory and in the field -- and so is likewise a fact.
 * "However, no solid fossil evidence showing transitional forms exists." See List of transitional fossils
 * Thanks, it's always amusing to see these old canards flying by, but immediate removal is essential. Will keep an eye on it. . dave souza, talk 11:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, creationist propaganda. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone should keep a list of how many times a month these same silly arguments are used in articles. I think the over/under would be 200.  :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is now on my watch list also. I will revert attempts to add the micro/macro evolution concept. It has a place in creationism-related articles, but not here. Good call Hrafn. DoktorDec (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DocDec, this happens so often, that there's probably 100 people who revert this garbage. One more pair of eyes will help reduce the average amount of time this stuff stays before being reverted to nanoseconds!!!!  :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OM: I would suspect once a month would be about the average we see each of these arguments -- but it certainly seems like more due to (i) how far past their use-by date these arguments are (1930s or thereabouts) and (ii) how earnestly their proponents advocate them (I had the author of these ones offer to "educate" me on the subject -- presumably because my rejecting them out-of-hand demonstrated a lamentable 'ignorance' of the undeniable 'science' underlying them). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk 03:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you need to keep watch on all evolution related articles really. They know they cant insert BS into the main article so they go after the smaller less viewed ones. Vunecal212 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)