Talk:Evolutionism/Archive 1

Like many -isms, Evolutionism needs a name
like many -isms does this indicate a faith-based system? Should it read:
 * Proponents of evolutionism subscribe to the theory of evolution as a faith and consider creationist ideas false without inquiry.

--MichaelTinkler (who'd like to write a page about 'scientism', but isn't up to the /talk section.)


 * (just a random note, I think you mean rationalism, which already has an entry. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 17:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, because they don't. -- AV

Dear Mike. I beg to disagree. The foundation of science is endless inquiry and questioning. This takes a bad "scientist" to leave a proposition without inquiry. Check my note on Piotr Wozniak to see that I myself also dug very deep into the inquiry (talking to my Catholic priests, talking to Jehova witnesses, talking to you and Tim Chambers, etc.). You can call me an evolutionist, but you cannot fairly accuse me of doing no inquiry. I spent hundreds of hours studying religious anti-evolutionary materials. With years I indeed become severely biased and rather impatient (usually "not again!" is the first thing that comes to my mind after a few paragraphs), but you cannot tell me I have not tried! I also belive the world with God would be a nicer place, but I cannot hope this to be true unless this is backed with evidence that I consider acceptable -- Piotr Wozniak

no, I'm not accusing you of being anything -- you're interested in the understanding of evolution in terms of the biological sciences. I am intending not to participate in evolution/creationism. There are, however, people who use science in exactly the way others use religion, as an excuse not to think very much. In contemporary English '-ism' is not a neutral termination, while '-ist' almost is. In fact, '-ist' tends to be a meliorative in exactly the intensity that '-ism' is a pejorative. That is how 'evolutionism' will be understood by most Anglo-American readers of English. --MichaelTinkler.

Is materialism a necessary prerequisite for scientific inquiry?
The belief that materialism is a necessary prerequisite to scientific inquiry is sometimes expressed by highly educated scientists with respectable educational credentials. For example, Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, wrote the following for the New York Review of Books in a critique of a book on Intelligent Design.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just–so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute..."(emphasis added)

I personally don't believe any such thing is necessary for the practice of good science. In fact, I frankly can't conceive of "scientific" evidence for an absolute naturalism. What would it look like? Perhaps science can make it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist," but it can't disprove the possibility of some non-mechanical force acting at some point in or prior to the history of the cosmos. I'm inclined to believe that, in spite of this, there are many who operate from explicit and unproven naturalistic assumptions. For others, like Lewontin, there are philosophical and metaphysical reasons behind their total commitment to materialism. But since these are the same kind of arguments theists have been using to support their systems since the time of Plato, I think it would actually be fair to call this kind of absolute and prior commitment to total naturalism "a faith-based system."

I also agree with Michael that "ism's" are commonly pejorative in common English use. This means that I doubt that Lewontin would enjoy being included in an article on "evolutionism."

These issues are important questions in the history of the philosophy of science. And they are equally important to anyone interested in the intersection between science and religion. But, though I'm sure they belong in the Wikipedia  somewhere I just don&rsquo;t think this is that place.

Nor, can I think of anything worth saying which really fits on this page... Perhaps it should be deleted? Evolutionism is a loaded word. --Mark Christensen

This Evolutionism page is a dictionary entry -- NOT an entry worthy of an encyclopedia
Well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the mere existence of evolutionism as a word in my American Heritage (I'm at home without a scholarly dictionary) doesn't mean that we have to use it as an entry. The process of "starting entries and letting others elaborate them" seems to me often to lead to dictionary entries. --MichaelTinkler

Wikipedia got lots of shortcomings, but richness might be one of its greatest strenghts! If it is to live up to my dream, I want to find there EVERYTHING that I ever need to know. A word definition too. In that context, I will take the liberty to add ism entry. As a native Pole, I look at the language via dictionary, which is my language Bible and ultimate judge. I have never had pejorative associations with -ism. The association carries the load of a given personality. Hence Hitlerism would be negative. Marxism or Darwinism would carry the load dependent on your views, and Pavlovianism would be associated with the highest genius of behavioral physiology. Prompted by your claim I checked several dictionaries and ... no sign of (official) negativity there! -- Piotr Wozniak

The negativity attaches to new words, not to existing ones like Marxism or realism or idealism. So if there was a new theory stressing the importance of drumbicality in studying woosefuls, "drumbicalism" would carry a slightly pejorative meaning; it would tend to imply that people who advocate drumbicalism are fanatical in their devotion to drumbicalism, that they do not understand the various valid objections put forth by anti-drumbicalists, that they're backwater, that they're dogmatic, etc. People who defend the importance of drumbicality would probably prefer to call their theory "The theory of drumbicality" or "The drumbicality theory" or something similar, and would shun the label "drumbicalism".

However, if the term does catch on, after a generation or so it becomes neutral.

Evolutionism should NOT be a separate page
I'm in favour of abolishing this entry entirely, myself. -- AV

- Drumbicalism is a first rate example. However, the 2 generation clause may not be true. Lord knows Marxism has been around for a while, and it is still subject to eye-rolling. Of course the Anglo-American problem is the belief that "common-sense" (i.e., everything opposed to all -ism designated belief systems) is not a belief system itself... --MichaelTinkler

- Who uses the term "evolutionism"? I have never heard it used before. Is it used by creationists to characterize their opponents? If so I think the article should say so. --Eob


 * I believe so. (Pun not intended.) I have never seen the term evolutionism or evolutionist in any other context. It seems to be used to somehow level the playing field, since the discussion between creationists and evolutionists&mdash;creationism vs. evolutionism&mdash;sounds much better than Creation vs. the theory of evolution, which would sound strictly like religion vs. science. Also using the term theory of creation would never be used by anyone who says that evolution is &ldquo;only a theory&rdquo;&mdash;and rightly so, since not being a theory in the sense of scientific method would inevitably imply that it must be a theory in the informal sense, meaning speculation. The unfortunate creation science is used but rarely, probably because it sounds like an oxymoron, and feels somehow ironic in its proper context. Personally, I find the usage and genesis of evolutionism (again, pun not intended) quite interesting and I think it would be very important to thoroughly explain if there is going to be an article on evolutionism. In any case, I don&rsquo;t really mind if people call me an evolutionist, as long as they also remember to call me a gravitationist, electromagnetist, quantum mechanic and special relativity theoretician. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 19:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- I don't believe that this is a useful topic of a separate article. Instead, it should be merged elsewhere, and redirected to Evolution (disambiguation) - Mike Rosoft 15:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We have fallen back into the Dark Ages -- A separate Evolutionism page again?
Quoting your opening salvo: <>


 * Surely you jest! Maybe you are trying to build an Abiogenesism page.  And maybe you are pulling our leg.  And maybe you don't know whereof you write.  But in any case your writing in Evolutionism is so, so fragile.  It cannot stand long.  We will take it down.  Why on earth do you think evolutionism as a separate page has any content at all!!  Any standard English dictionary, pardon my pun, such as the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, page 636, will define evolutionism as "A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin."  What more detail than that could there be in Evolutionism?  Certainly Charles Darwin did NOT state an explanation for the origin of life!  Or do you have in mind some Darwinian book that I have not read yet!  Maybe I am wrong; tell me.  ---Rednblu 02:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. If there is going to be a separate article on evolutionism, it should contain much more than merely a reference to evolution and Darwin. No one would use the terms evolutionism and evolutionist if they meant exactly the same as the theory of evolution and someone who accepts it, respectively. In my opinion the article on evolutionism&mdash;if there is going to be one, or a section in some other article otherwise&mdash;should explain who tends to use those terms, and in what contexts (see my other comment). E.g. I have never heard anyone calling herself an evolutionist, just like I have never heard anyone describing herself as a gravitationist because she happens to accept the theory of gravitation. Furthermore, there are people who call others &ldquo;Darwinists&rdquo; but interestingly no one seems to call anyone &ldquo;Newtonists&rdquo; or &ldquo;Einsteinists.&rdquo; It seems that &ldquo;evolutionists&rdquo; are those who strongly oppose the rejection of evolution by creationists, but it is not the rejection of evolution per se that seems to provoke such strong emotional reactions of those so called &ldquo;evolutionists&rdquo; but rather the rejection of the scientific method. Therefore, I would call them &ldquo;scientists&rdquo; instead of &ldquo;evolutionists.&rdquo; Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 20:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Right, you are the creationist, and it is principally creationists that use the word. Let's not get carried away here. :)

I agree that Abiogenesis needs mentioning too. I am using the term "origins" as a loose word to include abiogenesis in the first place and the evolution that followed it, like Darwin used the term origins in The Origin of Species. That ambiguation needs tidying up.

If however, we go onto usenet and Search for "evolutionism" we get many hits; and in talk.origins 27,200 of them. If we go to the dictionary defition, you neglect to point out the second meaning. Since it very clearly points to evolution, in which the scientific theory is explained, I do not think that that is a problem. (after all we have pages on creation and creationism). I'll post to t.o. and see if someone can help with the details. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 11:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then there is Darwinism of course...

---


 * Among the people I know who use the word "evolutionism," most are anthropologists. And I assure you they do not believe in a Creator.  They use the term "evolutionism" in writing--rarely in speaking--unless they are referring to a specific paper or a line of analysis in a series of papers.  Here is a search on "evolutionism" at amazon.com.  That amazon.com link should give you a good set of data to sample the early uses and general uses of "evolutionism."  I know you have an idiosyncratic penchant for calling anyone who forces you to deal with the facts a "creationist."  But that is all right, blind man.  Do your thing.


 * You might turn Evolutionism into a worthwhile page by tracing the history of Evolutionism. The idea that the atoms did it by themselves to create life and the diversity of species with no help from a Creator is at least as old as Democritus who lived around 400 BC.  Here is an interesting translation of a quote of Lactantius, who you might agree hereby professed himself to be a creationist: "Democritus was wrong to think that human beings were generated from the earth like worms, without any design or any creator." (Taylor, The Atomists, p. 133).


 * Lucretius attributed to Epicurus the idea that we humans descended from the ancient ancestors of the wild beasts; and Epicurus was the student of a student of Democritus. Even before the birth of Christ, Lucretius described the changes in the physiology of early humans in growing to become different from their bestial ancestors:

"But mortal man Was then far hardier in the old champaign, As well he should be, since a hardier earth Had him begotten; builded too was he Of bigger and more solid bones within, And knit with stalwart sinews through the flesh, Nor easily seized by either heat or cold, Or alien food or any ail or irk. And whilst so many lustrums of the sun Rolled on across the sky, men led a life After the roving habit of wild beasts. Not then were sturdy guiders of curved ploughs, And none knew then to work the fields with iron, Or plant young shoots in holes of delved loam, Or lop with hooked knives from off high trees The boughs of yester-year. What sun and rains To them had given, what earth of own accord Created then, was boon enough to glad Their simple hearts. Mid acorn-laden oaks Would they refresh their bodies for the nonce; And the wild berries of the arbute-tree, Which now thou seest to ripen purple-red In winter time, the old telluric soil Would bear then more abundant and more big."


 * Darwin's contemporaries used the term "evolution" to attack the idea of a Creator before Darwin ever used the term himself in his own publications. For example, the 1859 First Edition of Origin of Species did not use the term "evolution" and did not argue against the idea of a Creator.   In contrast, Herbert Spencer at the same time was writing of mechanisms by which natural forces because of probabilities could produce more complex and more adaptable structures generally, in civilizations, in politics, and in commerce--without the intervention of a Creator or assistance of a Divine plan.  For example, in Social Statics in 1851, Spencer wrote:

"[C]ivilization no longer appears to be a regular unfolding after a specific plan; but seems rather a development of man's latent capabilities under the action of favourable circumstances; which favourable circumstances, mark, were certain some time or other to occur. Those complex influences underlying the higher orders of natural phenomena, but more especially those underlying the organic world, work in subordination to the law of probabilities. A plant, for instance, produces thousands of seeds. The greater part of these are destroyed by creatures that live upon them, or fall into places where they cannot germinate. Of the young plants produced by those which do germinate, many are smothered by their neighbours; others are blighted by insects, or eaten up by animals; and in the average of cases, only one of them produces a perfect specimen of its species, which, escaping all dangers, brings to maturity seeds enough to continue the race. Thus is it also with every kind of creature. Thus is it also, as M. Quetelet has shown, with the phenomena of human life. And thus was it even with the germination and growth of society. The seeds of civilization existing in the aboriginal man, and distributed over the earth by his multiplication, were certain in the lapse of time to fall here and there into circumstances fit for their development; and, in spite of all blightings and uprootings, were certain, by sufficient repetition of these occurences, ultimately to originate a civilization which should outlive all disasters and arrive at perfection."


 * Spencer went further in his 1857, Progress: Its Law and Cause, saying that natural forces working within natural probabilities would form temporarily stable structures that replicated themselves against forces of competition in the primordial changes of the Universe, geology of the Earth, climate patterns, biological adaptations to environmental changes, evolution of Humanity from earlier beasts, diversity and longevity of social structures, political parties, and commercial firms--all done in the absence of a Creator:

"The advance from the simple to the complex, through a process of successive differentiations, is seen alike in the earliest changes of the Universe to which we can reason our way back, and in the earliest changes which we can inductively establish; it is seen in the geologic and climatic evolution of the Earth, and of every single organism on its surface; it is seen in the evolution of Humanity, whether contemplated in the civilized individual, or in the aggregation of races; it is seen in the evolution of Society in respect both of its political and economical organization; and it is seen in the evolution of all those endless concrete and abstract products of human activity which constitute the environment of our daily life." 


 * It wasn't until 1872, in his Sixth Edition of Origin of Species that Darwin finally adopted into his own writing the term "evolution" that his contemporaries had been using for over twenty years to explain how the universe, earth, life, and intelligent people with working civilizations could arise without even one intervention or plan of a Creator.


 * From these facts, you might outline the Evolutionism page as a chronological account of development of the ideas that natural forces could produce the ancient and modern worlds, including geology, physical law, and life forms without the intervention or plan of a Creator. A good reference for you to use might be Robert Carneiro's excellent book, "Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology."  For example, the first chapter titled "The Early History of Evolutionism" summarizes the synthesis from earlier philosophers and brilliant innovation of Darwin's contemporaries in developing the concepts and terms of "evolution" and "evolutionism" in attempting to explain the origins of worlds, life, and civilizations without the intervention of a Creator or a Divine plan.


 * In view of all the above possibilities for an excellent page on Evolutionism, I suggest that we all wait before nominating Evolutionism for Votes for Deletion and re-banishment to a #REDIRECT page to Evolution that would be the sure fate of the current Evolutionism page. ---Rednblu 20:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

That's a nice bit of research; certainly its historical usage could be encyclopedic. Despite differences of opinion I think that this can be developed. VFD is a bit strong, yet, and the page should be kept though I have mentioned in at requests for comment. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 21:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have got some help off usenet. see. Cheers, Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 11:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone within anthropology who uses the word "evolutionism" to describe an advocate of "cultural evolution." It might occur; all I can say is it is not common. Slrubenstein

---

You write: <>


 * 'If' that is true, what you write, then why would Charles Darwin so carefully insert such an UNbiological term as "evolution" into his Sixth Edition of Origin of Species after the word "evolution" had developed by 1872 a clear understanding for twenty years among English speaking peoples that "evolution" was the following: An explanation of how civilization, cities, citizens, cows, coleoptera, and coelenterates could arise from the Cenozoic ooze, carbon dioxide, and cosmic rays--all without the intervention of the Creator and without a Creator's plan?  Herbert Spencer as he wrote about "evolution" a whopping six years before Darwin wrote his Origin of Species would surely disagree with your idea that "evolution" as he wrote about it was merely a theory of cultural evolution without a biological meaning. For Spencer explicitly listed the following as derived from "evolution": Universe, geology, climate, "every single organism," living humans, society and its "political and economical organization."  ---Rednblu 22:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Alright mate, I'm actually struggling a little with this history of anthropology stuff and would appreciate some help. Darwin's important contribution was to synthesise thought on origins and provide a mechanism for evolution. Remember this is a wiki, and since you won't be able to get rid of this page through WP:VFD, you might as well help write it. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 09:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Let me clarify again my personal interests. As an evolutionist, I think it is very important to get evolutionists to be realistic about how rabidly evolutionists continue to censor creationist speech; by law, by mob rule, and by monopoly. The current case-in-point is Wikipedia, specifically as evidenced by the knee-jerk vitriol of the evolutionists on the History pages of "creationism" and "evolution". So I am not interested in playing the evolutionist reversion game of who gets the last reversion. What I am interested in is getting the creationists and the evolutionists to deal with the facts. Being an evolutionist, I have more hope for getting the evolutionists to deal with the facts. But the evolutionists repeatedly refuse to deal with the facts that the creationists pose to them. Let me suggest again a religion-neutral outline for the evolutionism page. If there is no God to make the politics of evolutionism a special cause different from any other political competition, then the evolutionism page should follow the outline of any Wikipedia religion-neutral summary of a political movement--such as communism. Accordingly, a religion-neutral outline for evolutionism might be derived from, for example, constructing the outline as a functional analogy to communism:


 * Evolutionism
 * Early evolutionism
 * The ideas of Darwin and Spencer
 * Evolutionism versus Creationism
 * The future of evolutionism
 * Language and the word evolutionist
 * Related topics
 * External links
 * Online resources for original Darwinist literature
 * Evolutionist Political Arms

And I suggest any good evolutionist anthropologist's summary of the history of evolutionism as a sourcebook for filling out the above outline. I suggest to you the writings of the evolutionist anthropologists because they appear to me to be far more religion-neutral than the writings of the evolutionist biologists, as exemplified by the heavily religion-biased talk.origins propaganda that you cite. Here is a link to give you an example of what I mean by "religion-neutral" writing. Specifically, I recommend that you purchase or borrow a copy of Robert Carneiro's excellent book, "Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology," and for your immediate perusal, I offer the on-line images of the first few pages of Carneiro's First Chapter so that you can get an idea of the "religion-neutral" approach to "evolutionism" in this book. ---Rednblu 15:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Okay, that makes sense. I did look at Carneiro's book; there is good material there that could find its way into evolution (disambiguation) and social evolution. Though please don't preach to me on the POV, your own user page speaks volumes; though that seems an odd philosophy to me; and I'm quite knowledeable on scientific philosophy. I promise I won't revert any edits you make, and we can discuss any of those here, and if neccessary go through appropriate process. Alternatively, let's try to make some notes attalk:evolution/sketch or somewhere.

As for censorship, there are two issues here. The first is that as a rationalist, I do not have a problem mentioning anti-evolutionist literature because it is patent nonsense; linking to it. However, it must be NPOV; the best way to do that is to represent the current scientific paradigm, then alternative scientific theories which meet the criteria of scientific philosophy, then the anti-evolutionist POV.

I agree that the first section needs expanding, but I'm an evolutionist (one who studies evolution); not a sociologist, and I'm slightly baffled. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 16:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

How is this page significant?
So how is the page Evolutionism different from Evolution and different from Creationism and different from Darwinism and different from Cultural evolution? What content or analysis would be on Evolutionism that would be on none of those other pages? ---Rednblu 17:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That it is identified by creationists as a religion (although they sometimes use the word Darwinism, though that page refers to Darwinian process) and the Peluga court case is justification enough. It is unlikely to be linked to by someone meaning biological evolution; that would be inherently POV and be pointing at the wrong page.  There have been requests at talk:evolution for an "evolution as a religion" page.  And following the principle of self-identification, it would be wrong to put information on atheism etc here; it is right that it points to such pages, someone researching the subject may type evolutinoism into the search bar; in that way it acts as a dismabig page, but it is not quite a disambiguation page because it contains useful information.  I suppose you might want to reinstate the  notice in the anthropology section.  Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 17:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

''<>''


 * How about the following as a scaffolding against which a worthwhile Evolutionism page could be constructed? From a religion-neutral viewpoint, religion contains one important element of science--explanation.  However, science goes one step further and requires that the explanations of science be verifiable--and must survive the verification.  Would you agree with me that during the lifetime of Darwin, "evolution" replaced "religion" as the dominant explanation?  But even if "evolution" replaced "religion" as the dominant explanation, that does not make "evolution" a "religion."  Nonetheless, I think it would be a good idea for evolutionists to deal honestly with the way that Charles Darwin imported into his Sixth Edition of Origin of Species the term "evolution" for the first time with the clear understanding that from then on "evolution" and "natural selection" were to replace the Creator.  This does not make Evolutionism a Religion; rather Evolutionism is a better explanation than Religion for people who require the explanation to be verifiable, verified, and repeatably demonstrable. --Rednblu 20:28, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. Science is not a religion because science is by definition naturalistic; previous to The Origin the explanation that one would arrive at employing scientific principles would probably be Lamarckian in character. However, the problem with that is the philosophy of science develops somewhat after its publication, see Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn's philosophies. Rationalism comes from Bertrand Russell.

Popper said we cannot prove a positive, hence that evolution can't be proven, only implied hence it is a paradigm. By Occam's razor, the most probable explanation is the paradigm. Human's assessment of this probability changes with time, leading to paradigm shifts, atleast regarding those who study biology, though it needs to be pointed out that there was an "Eclipse of Darwinism" in which Lamarckism was often preferred, which wasn't really until over until the modern synthesis of the 1930s.

Humans hadn't really know this until about the 1960s however. And prior to evolution by natural selection becoming the accepted paradigm, advocacy of it was probably an ism.

However, some creationist are not religion-neutral and may consider evolutionism to be a religion. Because of Wikipedia's policy of self-identification and NPOV, it is only possible to say what the creationist POV is. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 22:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---


 * Though I would not expect any creationist to be religion-neutral, I would like to think that an evolutionist could be--where by evolutionist I mean simply someone putting their bets on "evolution" rather than "religion" as the explanation. After all, "religion" seems to be a common human hunger, and if "evolution" is the explanation, then "evolution" is the source of even the human hunger for "religion."  Accordingly, for the Evolutionism page, "religion" might be just an inherited intuitive explanation. ]  ---Rednblu 23:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Michael Ruse
"Philosopher of science Michael Ruse has more recently come to the conclusion that evolution is ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions."

The article says no such thing - I inserted a link. The Michael Ruse sentence above is not true (at least if it refers to this article) and should be removed. Is this just another typically dishonest creationist strategy?


 * I agree that it should be removed, but not because it is incorrect. He does actually say that. However, this article is not the right place for a sentence like this! The philosphical basis of all knowledge would have to be discussed to bring this statement in proper perspective. Awolf002 11:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Separation
This page should be merged with Creationism and Theory of Evolution. The essence of this page seems to condense down to the single sentence "Creationists refer to supporters of the Theory of Evolution as Evolutionism, seeking to treat it as a belief, rather than scientific theory". In addition, the existence of this page seems non NPOV. Therefore, for these two reasons, I have made this page a candidate for speedy deletion. CheeseDreams 20:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SCIENTISTS
It's obviously that anyone using the word ist or ism to describe something is obviously in in the great creationist conspiracy to label someone as an ist, for instance, there are some people that endorse science and believe that science is the way to benefit humanity and there are some people that practice science, thus, if people like myself that are creationists wanted to belittle them we could label them as SCIENTISTS and ruin them in light of the public, so fortunately, scientists aren't labeled as... oh wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC) ---

I'm sorry. I don't understand. Do you disagree with the disambiguation that starts the page?
 * This page is about the origins of the terms and concepts of evolution, evolutionist, and evolutionism as used by Charles Darwin and his contemporaries. For technical details of the origin of species, see evolution; for other meanings, see evolution (disambiguation). ---Rednblu | Talk 20:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * This has been changed into a VFD. Please comment there.

Michael Ruse 1993 AAAS speech
I cut the following questionable paragraph here because the following paragraph is irrelevant to the Evolutionism page. The Evolutionism page is not about the Creation vs. evolution debate.


 * <>

I think you have in mind a speech that Michael Ruse gave to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1993. In my opinion, what he was talking about is irrelevant to the Evolutionism page. If you get the whole speech and analyze it, I believe your analysis would be relevant to the Creation vs. evolution debate page. Would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The VFD page is veering towards making this page about the term as used in cultural anthropology, and moving all of the stuff about creationism to the Creation vs evolution debate page. Whether or not we agree on that I definitely agree that the above sentence has nothing to do with "Evolutionism" in any form and would, if it belongs on wikipedia at all, be best on C vs e debate.  Joe D (t) 12:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to clear up VFD issues
The first section of this article is about the term's use in cultural anthropology / social sciences, though you'd be forgiven for not realising that as it really doesn't make it clear, and that the section spends so much time talking about Darwin may confuse things more.

The second section is about creation vs evolution, and whatever we decide here/VFD the two sections do not belong on the same page - if we vote to keep all content this must at least be a disambiguation page.

My own opinion is that the creationism stuff should be merged into the Creationism vs Evolution article, and we add a note "This page is about the Evolutionism as used in the social sciences; you may have been looking for the term used in the Creationism vs Evolution debate."

Joe D (t) 14:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that would be an acceptable solution CheeseDreams 19:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * P.s. the link is Creation vs. evolution debate CheeseDreams 19:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair deal. Let's do it. Kim Bruning 22:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * As I have already stated, I don't see this as an appropriate solution. The first section (Charles Darwin's (non-)use of the words evolution and evolutionism) belongs to evolution; the second one (usage by others) deserves a mention in evolution and/or evolution (disambiguation); the third one (use of evolutionism by creationists) should be moved to creation vs. evolution debate. There is no content which could not be merged elsewhere. This leaves us with the article being changed into a redirect; the best location would be evolution (disambiguation). - Mike Rosoft 13:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Have you beed reading the discussion on the VFD? Evolutionism used in the first section of the page is NOT about evolution.  You could be forgiven for thinking that the first time, it is a bit ambiguous and poorly introduced, but this has been mentioned countless times. Joe D (t) 16:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * For the last time, I did, and I am not changing my vote. (And the use/non-use of the word evolution/evolutionism by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species is certainly relevant in the Evolution article. Not to mention that the first section barely mentions "evolutionism" at all.) - Mike Rosoft 03:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That's because typically Evolutionism is not Evolution. Kim Bruning 20:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In that case, how is/was it relevant in the Evolutionism article? - Mike Rosoft 14:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--- <>


 * For reference, I also have read and oppose the suggestion on Talk:Evolutionism to split the Evolutionism page into the POVs on "evolutionism." This suggested split is as much a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy as would be the split and merge of the Capitalism page into the Capital page and the PrivateOwnership vs. PublicOwnership debate page. Such a split into Main articles: with summaries on the MainPage might be NPOV appropriate if the Evolutionism page were huge, which it is not.  A disambiguation page may be appropriate, but in my opinion, the naming convention for that disambiguation page should follow the NPOV naming-convention policy used in constructing the Capital (disambiguation) page.  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:14, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--- <>

I just created an Evolutionism (disambiguation) page for your review. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Seen it, commenting there. Kim Bruning 20:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "For reference, I also have read and oppose the suggestion on Talk:Evolutionism to split the Evolutionism page into the POVs on "evolutionism."


 * Could you please clarify that sentence? Split evolutionism page into the point of views.. ON evolutionism...


 * Annoying username (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Effect of the Recent Adjustment of the Evolutionism Page


Why is that page discussing usage of a word? Isnt that the purpose of entries in Wiktionary (and disambiguation pages) instead?

I don't see why sections on "Sampling of use of Evolutionism" and the like should constitute a valid encyclopedia article.

What remains afterward is
 * one or two paragraphs about the use of the term by creationists
 * this could be moved to the Creation vs. evolution debate page


 * a few quotes about evidence for evolution used by darwin
 * this could be moved to Evolution


 * a dictionary etymology
 * this should be moved to the Wiktionary


 * discussion of one or two theories of albiogenesis etc. before Evolution
 * this should be moved to a new article such as Early non-biblical theories of albiogenesis (but with a better title).

Who agrees? CheeseDreams 01:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I have waited two days now for someone to step forward in support of the above proposal. :) Clearly I disagree on all points, as you can see from the edit history of Evolutionism.  :((  I suggest the following: Is that a deal?  ---Rednblu | Talk 17:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Let's leave the Evolutionism page with all the decorative VfD tags, Merge tags, Cut tags, Split tags, and Move to Wiktionary tags at the top of the page as they are :) --or feel free to add other similar holiday tags--as long as the "system people" do not object to seeing the Evolutionism page show up in surprising places! :)))
 * 2) Until New Year's Day 2005, let's all actually read the references cited.  I was amazed to read for the first time the totality of Erasmus Darwin's "Temple of Nature" for which I could not find an online link :(( --and I notice the red link on Temple of Nature.  I see some of the sources, references, and citations are incomplete, and I will see if I can get some adventuresome Wikipedia editors to complete those sources, references, and citations before New Year's Day 2005.  :)
 * 3) I will pitch in here to help complete some of the outline for the "Evolutionism 1875 to the present" section.  By my cursory examination, completing this section would consist mainly of summarizing and linking to existing Main articles: already in Wikipedia.  But we shall see. :(
 * 4) On New Year's Day, let's submit the Evolutionism page to "peer review" and ask everyone to quote and cite the other sources that would remove any remaining POV--in preparation for submitting this page for consideration for "Featured Article" fixes that the Wikipedia community would recommend.
 * No. I would like to see what other people say. Also see the history of this talk page. At least one other person than the two of us has commented today. CheeseDreams 23:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Usage and context of "evolutionism"
[Is "evolutionism" used by creationists to characterize their opponents?] I believe so. (Pun not intended.) I have never seen the term evolutionism or evolutionist in any other context. It seems to be used to somehow level the playing field, since the discussion between creationists and evolutionists&mdash;creationism vs. evolutionism&mdash;sounds much better than Creation vs. the theory of evolution, which would sound strictly like religion vs. science. Also using the term theory of creation would never be used by anyone who says that evolution is “only a theory”&mdash;and rightly so, since not being a theory in the sense of scientific method would inevitably imply that it must be a theory in the informal sense, meaning speculation. The unfortunate creation science is used but rarely, probably because it sounds like an oxymoron, and feels somehow ironic in its proper context. Personally, I find the usage and genesis of evolutionism (again, pun not intended) quite interesting and I think it would be very important to thoroughly explain if there is going to be an article on evolutionism. In any case, I don’t really mind if people call me an evolutionist, as long as they also remember to call me a gravitationist, electromagnetist, quantum mechanic and special relativity theoretician. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 19:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Should we define evolutionism as just "a theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin"?] I have to disagree. If there is going to be a separate article on evolutionism, it should contain much more than merely a reference to evolution and Darwin. No one would use the terms evolutionism and evolutionist if they meant exactly the same as the theory of evolution and someone who accepts it, respectively. In my opinion the article on evolutionism&mdash;if there is going to be one, or a section in some other article otherwise&mdash;should explain who tends to use those terms, and in what contexts (see my other comment). E.g. I have never heard anyone calling herself an evolutionist, just like I have never heard anyone describing herself as a gravitationist because she happens to accept the theory of gravitation. Furthermore, there are people who call others “Darwinists” but interestingly no one seems to call anyone “Newtonists” or “Einsteinists.” It seems that “evolutionists” are those who strongly oppose the rejection of evolution by creationists, but it is not the rejection of evolution per se that seems to provoke such strong emotional reactions of those so called “evolutionists” but rather the rejection of the scientific method. Therefore, I would call them “scientists” instead of “evolutionists.” Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 20:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whatever the final decision will be on whether to have separate articles or just short sections in already existing articles, I believe that it is important to note who, when, and why uses the terms “evolutionism” and “evolutionists,” for as we can see the fact is that some people do, and usually those who reject the theory of evolution, as a quick Google search for evolutionists and evolutionism seems to show very well. The opinion whether it is a good idea to use those words should probably be left to the reader who would have enough informations to base that opinion on some facts. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 02:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I have read what you wrote and I agree with the substance of what you wrote. Well said! ---Rednblu | Talk 02:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree too that Evolutionism is used almost exclusively as a derogatory term, and still do not think it justifies a seperate page, neither for its dictionary definition/etymology (Move to wiktionary) or its use as a derogatory term (move to Evolution vs. creation debate or Creationism, or both). CheeseDreams 19:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Modern evolutionism research
--- Begin references container for quotations and citations to published scholars of evolutionism

Early history of evolutionism

 * Carneiro describes it this way, "In the seventeenth century, 'evolution' began to be used in English to refer to an orderly sequence of events, particularly one in which the outcome was somehow contained within it from the start." Since the outcome was already contained within every prior stage of the earth, life, and universe, everything would happen as it has without divine intervention. (Carneiro 2003:1). For example, Sir Matthew Hale in 1677 used the term evolution to attack the atheistic atomism of Democritus and his student Epicurus.  (Goodrum 2002:212-214).  In that attack, Hale summarized the atomist idea that the vibrations and collisions of atoms in the void without divine intervention had formed "Primordial Seeds" (semina) which were the "immediate, primitive, productive Principles of Men, Animals, Birds and Fishes."  (Hale 1677:257).  According to Hale, the mechanism of the "Primordial Seeds" is an "absurdity" because "it must have potentially at least the whole Systeme of Humane Nature, or at least that Ideal Principle or Configuration thereof, in the evolution whereof the complement and formation of the Humane Nature must consist. . . and all this drawn from a fortuitous coalition of senseless and dead Atoms." (Hale 1677:257, 259) (emphasis added).
 * "By analyzing the ways scientific and religious factors interacted in the debate over the spontaneous generation of the first humans we will not only make a contribution to the history of seventeenth-century atomism but also link problems and ideas in the physical sciences with those in the biological and anthropological sciences. At the same time this study illustrates the ways in which scientific ideas were shaped by, or needed to respond to, ideas and concerns that had their roots in religion." (Goodrum 2002: 207).
 * Hale, M. (1677). The Primitive Origination of Mankind, Considered and Examined According to the Light of Nature (London).
 * Goodrum, M.R. (2002). Atomism, atheism, and the spontaneous generation of human beings: The debate over a natural origin of the first humans in seventeenth-century Britain. Journal of the History of Ideas 63 (2), pp. 207-224.


 * On line link for Paul Elliott, "Erasmus Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and the Origins of the Evolutionary Worldview in British Provincial Scientific Culture, 1770–1850" (History of Science Society) (University of Chicago Press)


 * Detailed analysis of what evolutionist History of ideas scholars call the "biological evolutionism" of Erasmus Darwin
 * Primer, Irwin. (1964).  Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature: Progress, evolution, and the Eleusinian Mysteries.  Journal of the History of Ideas 25 (1), pp. 58-76.
 * Erasmus Darwin's footnote in his Temple of Nature (1803), pp. 166-67n is analyzed on page 62 of the above (Irwin (1964), p. 62).
 * The reference to Eleusinian Mysteries alludes to the seasonal flowering of life in the spring. That is, the reference to Eleusinian Mysteries in the title of the above article makes an analogy with Erasmus Darwin's sketch in the above footnote of Erasmus Darwin's hypothesis of repeated collapse of the Universe into "one central chaos" with an automatic convergence of earth-like planets from the dust of the crushing collapse, followed by the automatic repopulation of some earth-like planets with life like ours--because of the "immutable laws" innate in "matter."

Evolutionary biology

 * [There will be some duplication across categories. Duplications will be eliminated in the final assembly.  Order of listing is "Most recent first."]


 * PUBMED
 * Anderson, W. (2004). Natural histories of infectious disease: ecological vision in twentieth-century biomedical science. Osiris 19, pp. 39-61
 * Author's scholarly institution. Department of Medical History and Bioethics, University of Wisconsin Medical School.
 * Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("During the twentieth century, disease ecology emerged as a distinct disciplinary network within infectious diseases research. The key figures were Theobald Smith, F. Macfarlane Burnet, Rene Dubos, and Frank Fenner. They all drew on Darwinian evolutionism to fashion an integrative (but rarely holistic) understanding of disease processes, distinguishing themselves from reductionist 'chemists' and mere 'microbe hunters.'") (emphasis added) (p. 39)
 * Disease ecology. Sample 1999 NIH RFA.
 * Amouroux, R. (2004). "W. Bolsche's book". Freud and German evolutionism in the beginning of the 20th century. Gesnerus 61 (1-2), pp. 24-36 (in French)
 * Author's scholarly institution. Hopital Armand Trousseau, Service d'anesthesie.
 * Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("The task at hand is to prepare the ground for a study of German evolutionism, both popular and scientific, and its ties to psychoanalysis.") (emphasis added) (p. 24) (PUBMED translation of abstract from French into English)
 * Elliott, P. (2003). Erasmus Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and the origins of the evolutionary worldview in British provincial scientific culture, 1770-1780. Isis 94 (1), pp. 1-29. (already cited above and quoted in the current Evolutionism page).
 * Author's scholarly institution. School of Geography, University of Nottingham.
 * Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("Most important, it shows that his [ Herbert Spencer's ] evolutionism was originally stimulated by his association with the Derby philosophical community, for it was through this group--of which his father, who also appears to have espoused a deistic evolutionary theory, was a member--that he was first exposed to progressive Enlightenment social and educational philosophies and to the evolutionary worldview of Erasmus Darwin, the first president of the Derby Philosophical Society.") (emphasis added) (p. 1)
 * . . . Others to follow [Under assembly]

Cultural anthropology

 * JSTOR search on Anthropology POV
 * [Under assembly]

Sociology

 * JSTOR search on Sociology POV
 * [Under assembly]

History of ideas

 * JSTOR search on 1) History and 2) History of science POVs
 * [Under assembly]

Marxist thought

 * JSTOR search on Economics POVs
 * [Under assembly]

Marxism is concerned with speculative future changes to societies, rather than a description of past changes to the genes and structure of organisms; and as such has nothing directly to do with Evolutionist theories.

Secular Judaism

 * JSTOR search on Religion, Judaism POVs
 * [Under assembly]

Modern controversies

 * JSTOR search on Religion, Political science, and Philosophy POVs
 * Owen, J.J. (1999). Church and state in Stanley Fish's antiliberalism. American Political Science Review 93 (4), pp. 911-924.
 * Author's scholarly institution. Boston College.
 * Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ([Stephen L.] Carter (1987) uses the debate between "creationism" and "evolutionism" to argue that the liberal faith is indeed without warrant. The faith in reason, Carter asserts, can claim no epistemological supremacy over any religious faith.") (emphasis added) (p. 913)
 * [Article on art theory]
 * Davis, E.B. (1995). Fundamentalism and folk science between the wars. Religion and American Culture 5 (2), pp. 217-248.
 * Author's scholarly institution. University of Pennsylvania, Mellon Fellow in the Humanities.
 * Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("For all of these reasons, the category "folk science" is an appropriate tool for understanding the history of evolutionism and creationism. Above all, it helps us see why the usual terms "religion" and "science" are inadequate to describe the past encounters: the traditional lines of demarcation between religion and science have often been blurred, if not obliterated.  Folk science, as Van Till observes, "provides a standing invitation to the unwary to confuse science and religion . . . ."  Nowhere is this more evident than in Rimmer's 1930 debate with Samuel Christian Schmucker (1860-1943), a biologist with a national reputation as a populizer of evolution.  This essay tells the story of that debate, sketches the lives and beliefs of the two principal characters, and argues that Rimmer's antievolutionism and Schmucker's evolutionary theism are best understood as competing varieties of folk science.") (emphasis added) (p. 219)
 * Others to follow. [Under assembly]
 * Curtis, R.C. (1986). Are methodologies theories of scientific rationality?  British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (1), pp. 135-161.
 * Author's scholarly institution. York University, Ontario.
 * Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("[Charles] Darwin was not 'intuitively' following the methodology of one or another of our contemporary historian/philosophers.  Rather, he made a critical decision in the late 1830s, to try to satisfy a well-articulated methodology which we now think is in many ways mistaken, the partly Baconian, partly Kantian methodology of his scientific colleague, William Whewell.  By accepting Whewellian metascience, initially, as part of the unproblematic background to his scientific problem--the problem of species distribution--Darwin did what was necessary to promote a critical discussion of the relative merits of his own solution, evolutionism, and its main rival, creationism.  But eventually this led him into a debate about the merits of Whewellian metascience itself.  The result was that after 1860 Darwin gave us good arguments against some of the values which had guided the scientific community until then.") (emphasis added) (p. 137)
 * "The terms “catastrophism” and “uniformitarianism” were introduced in 1837 by William Whewell in his History of the Inductive Sciences to describe the two leading schools of theoretical geology at that time."
 * Others to follow. [Under assembly]

--- End references container

VfD debate
The vfd debate related to this article may be found at Talk:Evolutionism/delete -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 14:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And may I remind everyone that the summary conclusion of that debate as found on the Talk:Evolutionism/delete page has been amended and forged by an unauthorized editor. ;) It was a good joke, 8( but I hereby request that 1) either the amender and forger or 2) an authorized editor correct that summary conclusion and restore that summary conclusion to its original, rightful, and authorized statement of "The result of the debate was KEEP".  I understand that the tampering with the summary statement was frivolous and was made in good faith. :))  But the record should be accurate, all good jokes and yuks aside!  :((  ---Rednblu | Talk 17:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I note from the History file that as of 15:09, 13 Nov 2004, the VfD record at Talk:Evolutionism/delete was restored to its original, rightful, and authorized statement of "The result of the debate was KEEP". ---Rednblu | Talk 21:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I also note that the History file on this page says that the above entry was made at 17:05, 13 Nov 2004 ---Rednblu | Talk 21:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And may I remind everyone that it was not a forgery, just a descriptive summary of the other conclusion (see the comment on the edit history), i.e. that this article should be split up into various parts - also see the debate conclusion - where people started changing their votes because of this splitting up proposal. CheeseDreams 18:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No worries, first keep, then go for the next step, like splitting it up, if you insist. Let's discuss that here now! Kim Bruning 19:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For example; This page: Evilgelical Christians has no more a POV title than Evolutionism. Either both titles are removed or both remain. CheeseDreams 11:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Evilgelical Christians is not a title but a (perhaps unfortunate) redirect to Fundamentalist Christianity article.  I think that &ldquo;Either both titles are removed or both remain&rdquo; ultimatum is incorrect no matter what is you personal opinion on either of those articles (or redirect names) and on the deletion thereof. People interested in science (evolution) and those interested in religion (Fundamentalist Christianity) are not exactly the same people, so even if the two issues you present were identical&mdash;which they are not&mdash;demanding a consistent result of voting from two different sets of people would be forgetting that votes for deletion are not cast by a single group of judges, but by any user interested in a given subject and dispute. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 13:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Secular Creationists? Do they actually exist? CheeseDreams 23:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * &ldquo;Secular creationists&rdquo; is an oxymoron so obviously no, they do not actually exist&mdash;by definition. That having been clarified, the people interested in debates over scientific articles and those interested in debates over religious ones&mdash;as well as people participating in voting regarding the deletion of Evolutionism and Fundamentalist Christianity, respectively&mdash;are not the same people nevertheless, as Talk:Evolutionism and Talk:Fundamentalist Christianity&mdash;as well as Votes for deletion/Evolutionism and Votes for deletion/Fundamentalist Christianity, for that matter&mdash;seem to demonstrate rather well. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 02:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The only people who know Evilgelical Christians exists are people who have read Talk:Evolutionism after I mentioned it. As far as I can tell. I only created it to proove a point. CheeseDreams 21:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Interesting! 8)) Let me do some original research :)) on the comparisons you suggest. Nice observation.  Nice puzzle. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you are trying to point out that there are no VfD for Fundamentalist Christianity, then yes, that was my point. Please keep the context in mind&mdash;it&rsquo;s related to the &ldquo;Either both titles are removed or both remain&rdquo; ultimatum, which I find incorrect even though there are no secular creationists (which was supposedly an argument against my original point). Please also note that I have not casted my vote regarding the deletion of evolutionism, so it was meant as neither argument for deletion, nor a one against it. I have no strong views about a separate article. I only think that it might be important to write about the usage and context of the term evolutionism if we are going to write about it, either on Wikipedia or in the Wiktionary. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 12:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no objection what soever to usage and context of the term evolutionism as an article title. However, I would strongly recommend that it ought to be in Wiktionary (as is clearly suggested by the phrase "usage and context of the term"). CheeseDreams 21:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Move. CheeseDreams 21:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Move. It seems I'm new to this hot-button issue, so apologies if I'm repeating others. The fact remains that "evolutionism" is not a belief system/ideology/theory/entity in and of itself. It is a term accentuating a certain point of view concerning the scientific theory of evolution. As such, the sole purpose of the article is to talk about the term and its usage, not the theory. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  00:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) * Not so. Within sociology, anthropology, and history of ideas, just for starters, "evolutionism" is theory that definitely is not accentuating a certain point of view about evolutionary biology.  I refer you, for example, to Robert Carneiro's Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History.  Furthermore, according to Robert Carneiro, the term "evolutionism" is used in anthropology to describe a whole set of theories that include but are not limited to evolutionary biology.  What published scholar agrees with what you said?  ---Rednblu | Talk 06:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) **I'll take your comments into consideration and look into it. In the meantime, I advise you to look at WP:DICK. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  06:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Object

 * 1) Keep, the idea is just sabotage. And while were at it, slapping the "move to wiktionary" thing on it is not only absurd but downright childish.  ;Bear 06:38, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep, while I have problems with this page the move is anacronistic: "Discussion of usage and context" is implied by "having an encyclopedia article". Why did you move it when there was clearly no concensus? Joe D (t) 12:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep. The history of a term is perfectly valid for a Wikipedia article. See for example Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. --Fastfission 20:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * We don't, however, have anti-choice or anti-life, which are often used by opposing sides. A person who believes in evolution would not, I daresay, characterize him- or herself as a believer in evolutionism. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  00:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Evolutionism" is a classification term--like Homo sapiens--to an anthropology or history of ideas scholar. Just because a New Yorker never calls himself a Homo sapiens does not diminish how Homo sapiens the New Yorker is--if you know what Homo sapiens means.  ---Rednblu | Talk 07:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep. I can see why you might be able to argue that the article should be deleted. But that's been voted down, so don't try getting it effectively deleted through some roundabout method. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 23:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Unless he's breaking some rule then he can try whatever he wants.

Annoying username (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Such Nonsense
I tried to nominate this page for deletion and got sent here. There is no such word as "Evolutionism" in Merriam-Webster on-line nor in my 1986 American Heritage Dictionary. All the references on the bottom of the page are to creationist literature, which should be a clue (even to the clueless, such as Creationists) that there is no issue to be discussed here, except if the clueless want to talk to the clueless, for which purpose they ought not to use Wikipedia. The general concept being promoted, I gather, is that people who believe in evolution are following a creed, and the creationists want to tar this creed with other labels like materialism and atheism. This does not demonstrate that people who accept Darwin's theory and its descendents are athiests or materialists; it demonstrates that creationists are unable to understand how a person could accept evolution and worship God! It illustrates the narrowness, the stubbornness of these "crusaders," who have to force everyone into their restrictive channel of thought and belief. Give it up! Let ordinary people live and believe in evolution and religion, or not, withuout trying to squeeze anyone who does not blindly follow you into the procrustean bed of atheism, materialism, and crassness. Pdn 02:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * VfD notice inappropriate as it links to the Archive Talk:Evolutionism/delete: "This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP." Changed to Disputed tag so that debate takes place on this talk page. dave souza 11:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather than deleting a VfD notice, shouldn't you rather fix the link? I doubt VfD would succeed, but it might as well be handled properly.  Pdn has the right to nominate a page for deletiion.  Guettarda 12:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Strongly Keep: this page gives good information on the historical development of "evolutionism" and is usefully linked from the history of evolutionary thought. While the word may not appear in some U.S. dictionaries, it is defined in my copies of The Concise Oxford Dictionary and Chambers Concise 20th Century Dictionary, both of which show "evolution" as having more meanings than "biological evolution". The very first reference at the foot of the page is to Robert Carneiro, a proponent of evolution. Given that Wikipedia is international and that those originally using the term were British, censoring the word because of a current argument in the U.S. would be like putting a VfD notice on Liberalism because "liberal" is misused in current U.S. political debate and similarly has had different meanings over time and in different countries.- dave souza 11:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Strongly Remove: This page is nothing more than a woefully biased and totally dishonest political attempt by religious creationists to subvert the reality of evolution advocacy. Evolution is a scientific theory backed up by absolutely overwhelming and exhaustive evidence; it is not a belief in any religious sense of the word, and the motive behind evolution advocacy is scientific, not political. Pages such as this need to be removed if Wikipedia itself is to be taken as a serious source for good and accurate information. Aaarrrggh 17:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bleargh.
"Evolutionism" and "evolutionist" are shibboleths used by religious cranks who have a problem with certain biological theories, nothing more. REMOVE.


 * Except when it's used by scholars, who are referring to a certain way of viewing the world that has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Novium (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

POV header
It has been five months since CheeseDreams added the POV header, insisting that the term was only used by Creationsits. Clearly this has historically not be the case, as the page well documents. I don't see anybody else clamoring about a POV dispute. Unless anyone objects, I'll remove it. --Fastfission 22:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It probably would be a good idea... --goncalopp 30 June 2005 00:56 (UTC)


 * Very much in favour of removing it, but I cannot tell a lie, I think it was me wot added the header in place of Pdn's VfD notice which seemed to refer to a previously settled VfD, Anyway, please do remove it.dave souza 30 June 2005 19:59 (UTC)

Church
Church position must have a prominent section IMO, creationism being the main opponent.

BTW I stumbled upon the following claim:
 * John Paul II wrote a letter to the Pontificial Academy of Sciences in 1997 advising Vatican scientists (and Catholics at large) that the Church doesn’t have a problem with the scientific theory of evolution 

Any idea what exactly was this about? Mikkalai 17:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See Evolution (plus the Talk archives) and Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. Guettarda 18:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * read the full letter ~ Veledan | Talk | c . 14:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Article should need some statements of Christian evolution-accepting and evolution-proponent stand points. Creationists are a small but loud society, most often fundamentalist anti-interpretative sects interspersed among diverse low church denominations. Said: Rursus 10:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
I think this article violates No personal essays (imho so does "Intelligent design"). In my opinion most of the stuff can and should be moved to Creation science, History of evolutionary thought, Evolution, Erasmus Darwin, and other places. The current "definition" of evolutionism on this page is the same as Evolution. I think a more correct definition and introduction would be something along the lines of
 * "Evolutionism refers to the belief in the scientific theory of evolution. For the most part, the term is used only by Creation scientists who believe the theory is unsound. Often the phrase is used as a perjorative to draw attention to what some Creationists believe is closed-mindedness amongst scientists...etc"

What do the regular editors think?--Ben 18:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (Just an afterthought, the word contemporarily should probably be in there somewhere to distinguish contemporary from historical usage.) --Ben 18:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And another thing is that the second paragraph is very confusing. If "anthropologists and biologists" of today use the word to refer to "those who believe that the cultures or life forms being studied are evolving to a particular form" then why isn't that the definition? Is this right? The whole "in the 19th century" part seems very ill-placed. Do they "refer to "Evolutionists" in the 20th century" differently? --Ben 20:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And another afterthought, it should probably say "believe in the soundness of the scientific theory of evolution." --Ben 20:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Or how about this definition:


 * "Evolutionism, contemporarily, is often used to refer to the belief in the soundness of the scientific theory of evolution, especially by those who do not believe in the theory's soundness. It has specific meanings, however, in relevant sciences where it is used to refer to the idea that certain phenomena evolve to an axiomatic or archetypal form.


 * In the late 19th century, evolution, as in the dictionary definition of evolution: "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form," was popular study among scientific theorists of all sorts. Theories of this sort were called "evolutionist."

--Darwin caused the paradigm shift? Or was there already a focus on evolution? Or did Darwin just make it work... or...?


 * Evolutionism in Social Sciences
 * Main article Social evolutionism
 * In social sciences such as anthropology and sociology, evolutionism is still used in this meaning* and studied today. Anthropological evolutionism was developed in the 19th century and came after structural functionalism. It started out as the theory that societal development necessarily proceeded to a more "civilized" society. Since then, the theory has developed and is a key component of various forms such as ecological anthropology and ?

* as in the first paragraph. Need to rework this to read better (and also have some citations as it's mainly definition based.) --mention social structure. --mention social darwinism.


 * Evolutionism in Biology
 * Main article History of evolutionary thought
 * In the physical sciences, evolutionism was at first coined in geology...
 * Fell out of use and was used solely in biology... Evolutionism was used as in the contemporary meaning, referring to Darwinism at the time. In biology, evolutionism in the sense of archetypal genotypes, or "final forms"... is rejected as a result of processes such as genetic drift&dagger;.


 * Religion and Evolutionism
 * Main article Philosophy of biology
 * Evolutionism can also refer to a teleological belief in divine or divinely guided form called orthogenesis."


 * (&dagger;it might be good to mention something like phenotypic plasticity, genetic accommodation or whatever is actually the right thing here (I'm not a biologist so I'm not sure). polymorphism.. I'm just browsing around for these..) --Ben 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Collected wikilinks that might be helpful:


 * category:history of evolutionary biology
 * category:history of ideas
 * 19th-century philosophy
 * emergence

"The nature of emergence

According to Jeffrey Goldstein’s helpful overview (1999), the term 'emergence' was first used by the English philosopher G. H. Lewes well over 100 years ago. The term was taken up in the 1920s by "a loosely joined movement in the sciences, philosophy and theology known as emergent evolutionism…" (Goldstein 1999:53)."


 * Evolutionary economics

Evolutionism (philosophy)
Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Evolutionism Very interesting stuff. I think the article should be based around this sort of thing. Evolutionism as a "family of ideas."

"Evolutionism is a family of ideas which affirm that the universe and some or all of its parts have undergone irreversible, cumulative changes such that the number, variety, and complexity of the parts have increased. Evolutionism is thus opposed to the belief that the universe and its parts are eternally the same; or that they have been the same since they were created; or that they are now the same as they have been periodi- cally in the past; or that they are emanations from a higher and perfect source. If only living things are included, theories of organic evolution result...."

More philosophy-related Evolutionist Theories and Whitehead’s Philosophy

Also search for "emergent evolutionism"

See also emergentism

Comments
Leave comments here, but also feel free to play around a bit in my suggestion. --Ben 23:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dave Souza's change to the intro is much better imho, but I still think a lot of work needs to be done. I still don't have a very full grasp on it though, so I'm going to hold off editing until I do.--Ben 03:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please take this poll and indicate whether you think a rewrite/major overhaul is a good idea (as in Support/Object/Neutral). Note that a vote of "support" doesn't necessarily mean you support my (Ben's) suggestion specifically, just that you agree the topic needs a lot of work.

(sign with ~ )
 * 1) . Support for reasons I already stated. --Ben 23:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2)  Support: the pre-Darwin history bit's ok, but the modern meanings need sorted. Note that evolutionist re natural selection still appears in the UK without the connotation of Creationist abuse. ...dave souza 12:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Anthropology and Biology
I think the current second paragraph would confuse the reader when it comes to Anthropological evolutionism and Biological evolutionism. I find it sort of confuses the two. I'm going to think about it a bit and change it, but if anyone disagrees (or wants to change it themselves) let me know. Or if you disagree after I change it, write why here.--Ben 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed paragraph
Until this is cited, it has no place in the article. In fact, this entire article is as POV as anything I've ever seen, and I will tag that as well.
 * "The terms "evolutionism" and "evolutionist" are still used for theories about the development of cultures and civilisations. In modern anthropology and biology, the term evolutionism is used specifically for historical theories or beliefs of early sociocultural evolutionism developed in the 18th and 19th century that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves through progressive changes that are heritable. This idea was applied to cultures and societies as well as to living organisms. "

&#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How did this article get into this shape? It is a travesty.  And whoever put this in the Evolution or Biology Wikiproject ought to be ashamed.  This article is basically Creationist nonsense.  Orangemarlin 05:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I could answer that, but I won't (it'd be an uncivil reply)
 * I removed this, " ==Evolutionism 1875 to the present==


 * Summary of the Second, Fifth Chapter of Robert Carneiro's Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History " and will likely be removing the others. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim, I've never known you to be uncivil (now ducking under table in case G-d decides to send lightning my way). Anyways, you and Filll did a great job in cleaning up this article!!!!  Do you know how I found this travesty?  Well, I was reverting some schmuck of an anonymous vandal's work on some Evolution article, and I was checking his contributions--he had struck here.  Never knew about this article????  We need to be cleaning up this crap more.  Orangemarlin 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Major crapectomy
I propose that as Jim62 has proposed, we roll back most of the article to its 2004 version:. I look at the long voluminous discussion and it just makes my eyes cross. Why do we need so much discussion of a basically nonsense term that is only used by a few eccentric creationists?--Filll 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias
The author is heavily biased toward evolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.134.9 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Which one among the dozens of authors are you accusing, specifically?  wildie ·  wilđ di¢e  ·  wilł die  11:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The author of the Molecule article is heavily biased toward molecules.

Why evolutionist is "bad"

 * I guess I am somewhat confused as the why people disagree with the term Evolutionist, or Evolutionism. Anyone who believes in Christ is called a Christian.  So why not call someone who believes in Evolution an Evolutionist?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rg006 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Certain words acquire negative connotations depending on their usage and who uses them.

Imagine the following scenario. Suppose someone decided that "Christians" should be called "Christianists", and then proceeded to say that Christianists are:
 * liars
 * child molesters
 * gullible
 * stupid
 * snake handlers
 * dishonest
 * toothless and drooling yokels
 * cheaters
 * sex fiends
 * morons who speak in tongues, writhing on the floor
 * drunken fools
 * uneducated
 * people who engage in incest
 * morons
 * inbred
 * racists
 * people who engage in sex with barnyard animals
 * homophobes
 * trigger-happy gun fanatics
 * hypocrites
 * sexists
 * conservative fundamentalists
 * war mongers
 * anti-semites
 * full of hate for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, foreigners, people with dark skin, etc

Suppose that this was repeated over and over and over. Christianists were painted as evil devil worshippers in numerous publications and in the media and public discourse. People gave frequent speeches saying that Christianists were the most horrible people on the planet and suggested that they should be jailed or worse. Suppose that the public was whipped into a frenzy of hatred towards Christianists based on this. Suppose that these people vilifying Christianists refused to call them by the preferred name, Christians, for years and years and years. After a while, the word Christianist might be viewed negatively, do you not think?--Filll 18:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

When did this repeating happen over and over? And it seems that many statements in this article do not have sources so it seems like original research. Someone suggested evolutionists should be jailed? People are in a frenzy. Sorry I missed all of this. Do you have cites? Imbrella 00:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And for the fact that "evolutionist" is considered a pejorative term, because it really is defined as a "belief" in evolution as much as there is a belief in G_d. I don't believe in Evolution, and I don't accept Evolution because of faith, opinion, conviction--I accept Evolution as a fact, because it has been subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, because of the substantial proof, and because a lot of people smarter than I have studied and accepted it. Evolution is not a doctrine, it is not a dogma, and it does not require faith to accept. Therefore, I am a scientist by trade, by education and by lifestyle. Evolutionist means nothing to me, and is not a word that any scientist would use to describe their understanding of that particular field of science.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the use of the term D_rwinism is OK. Why do so many of the editors here get upset about it. D_rwin was a great thinker. And a very good writer and philospher. Imbrella 00:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To use a more direct comparison than Filll, look at how the term Islamist is used. JoshuaZ 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be like calling those who accept molecules as a fact "Moleculists", it's outright stupid.
 * I agree. It's horrible that anyone should be labeled as an ist, like atomist which is clearly a creationist conspiracy.  What if there were people that believed in science and they thought that knowledge of how the natural world works was somehow the way to enlightenment and then eventually we labeled them as SCIENTISTS... oh, wait... oops.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Scientists" is not a pejorative term so your point fails. Sorry. Annoying username (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles Darwin and The Brethren of Purity
The article includes a section: Ibn Miskawayh's al-Fawz al-Asghar and the Brethren of Purity's Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity (The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa) expressed evolutionary ideas on how species evolved from matter, into plants, and then animals, then apes, and then humans. English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812, while Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar were also available in European universities by the 19th century. These works likely had an influence on Charles Darwin, who was a student of Arabic, and his inception of Darwinism.

It is unclear to me how the sources indicate that Darwin was likely influenced by The Brethren of Purity work. Also, no sources are given which describe Darwin as a scholar of Arabic. This bit is also included in the Encyclopedia_of_the_Brethren_of_Purity article almost verbatim. Thus it is a bit suspect in my view, unless better sources emerge. Perhaps this section should be removed. 69.15.214.217 14:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Darwin - a student of Arabic?
I removed the following line:

These works likely had an influence on Charles Darwin, who was a student of Arabic, and his inception of Darwinism.

Since I haven't been able to find anything that supports this statement. If anyone else can find a reliable source that supports its claims then please show it. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for religious propaganda and fantasies.

Joe_hill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe hill (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What does Arabic have to do with religion? AlphaEta T / C 14:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. But you still have to be able to show some evidence or sources that support your claims. I have found nothing that supports the claim that "Darwin studied Arabic because he was interested in Islam" or that Darwins theory of evolution is based on or inspired by older arabic sources. That's my point. --Joe hill 14:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following part of the article since it's speculations that doesn't really add any useful information:

"English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812, while Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar were also available in European universities by the 19th century. English translations of the Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity were available from 1812. Arabic manuscripts of the al-Fawz al-Asghar and The Epistles of Ikhwan al-Safa were also available at the University of Cambridge.It has been suggested that these manuscripts may have influenced those interested in the transmutation of species at that time, possibly including Charles Darwin. " --Joe hill 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This was discussed a while ago at Talk:History of evolutionary thought and it's most unlikely that he learnt Arabic, or that the "works" had any direct influence on him – his grandfather, Lamarck and Grant are known sources of more detailed ideas which did directly influence him. The claims seem to be put forward by apologists for Arabic science, and appear to be in print but of very dubious reliability. .. dave souza, talk 14:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have had an impact - in what way?
"The polymath Ibn al-Haytham wrote a book in which he argued for evolutionism (although not natural selection), and numerous other Islamic scholars and scientists, such as Ibn Miskawayh, the Brethren of Purity, and the polymaths Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, Nasir al-Din Tusi, and Ibn Khaldun, discussed and developed these ideas. Translated into Latin, these works began to appear in the West after the Renaissance and appear to have had an impact on Western science."

Can anyone give any examples? Exactly in what way does it appear like muslim ideas had an impact on western science when it comes to the theory of evolution? If no one can give any examples of this - then I suggest we remove or rewrite that part. --Joe hill (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevancy
Having Judaism, Socialism, etc. in the "other isms" bit is totally silly, they are directly comparing it to creationism and other isms, no irrelevant examples need to be given. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, when reverting, I accidentally made it a minor edit. Oops. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it a bit silly? The other -isms are there to give the reader a further understanding of how the term is being used to imply a belief, dogma or a religion, as opposed to it being a scientific theory.  In fact, the sentence following the part you keep deleting mentions exactly what I just wrote.  So, anything else?  Baegis (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It should not be unrelated to the page, there should not be a link to Socialism, Nationalism, Judaism, etc. on a page about Evolutionism. I would put "to imply that it is equal to Creationism and other isms" then they can be linked to the ism page, and then they can understand what an ism is. There should not be irrelevant examples. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that the article ism is irrelevant. I think you mean -ism, except that is about the history of the suffix -ism, apparently.  Irrelevant.  In short, there is no suitable article to link to.  It's better to give a list of ad hoc examples, I think.  Silly rabbit (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Consensus. Reverting to examples given. Goo2you (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Went back and reviewed recent edits more closely. I agree with Baegis' edit here. Reverting myself. Goo2you (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But the examples are totally random and irrelevant. I would put:

"This label is used by creationists to suggest that evolution is an ideology like Creationism and other "-isms"." Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 05:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevancy and opinions
I honestly tried to provide what I thought was an objective rewrite of this article since the way the term may be used by some creationists is a matter of someone's opinion and the term evolutionist can also be used by scientists or laypersons to describe themselves at times. Wether the term was orginally coined by people that were creationists really seems to be a matter of opinion since noone knows for sure. I provided real, valid sources rather than a bunch of garbage from talk forums like talk.origins. This article seems to imply that there is a creationist conspiracy afoot to label people as "evolutionists" which is not really any more valid than me rewriting the article to redirect to a page about the vast left-wing evolution conspiracy. I'm hopeful that some sort of compromise could be reached so that this article deals with the subject at hand. The theory of evolution need not be explained to people on this page since that is what the evolution page is for. The information I provided in the edit that was reverted by an administrator as you can see in the [History] was more relevant to the subject and was verifiable, whereas the sources cited from talk forums and even free web hosting services like geocities cheapen this encylopedia and make it a forum for petty bickering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So among other things, I take it you propose remove the fragment "the theory of evolution itself is referred to as 'evolutionism' by creationists who portray it as a kind of secular religion", which was sourced to an article published in the magazine Science, a fairly prestigious and reliable source, rather than talkorigins. Is Science not a "real valid source" for you?  If not, how does your above post address this aspect of the change?  The other parts of your proposed change should also be laid out.  For example, on what basis do you assert that evolution "attempts to explain" rather than "explains"?  Does it fail to do so in some way that can be attributed to a significant number of reliable sources?  Also, explain exactly why it is that an editorial published in Wired Magazine by someone called Michael Schrage is a more reliable source for the Creation-evolution controversy than talkorigins.org, a moderated forum with a substantial reputation for reliability on the controversy?  As far as I can tell, that is the only source you have added (besides misrepresenting the Science source), and it is really not as authoritative as you seem to believe.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 03:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly Rabbit, yes, that fragment should be removed. The Science Article does not state anywhere that the term is used to portray "it" as some kind of secular religion.  More to the point, the statement is clearly a biased POV statement that is inappropriate in a wiki article.  I don't like Tzw100's changes, but the article needs work. --Thesoxlost (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You feel that the Science article does not support the proposed wording. That's fair enough, and I am open for discussion.  However, you will note that the above post did not address this.  In fact, the above post addressed almost no aspects of the proposed edit.  The only thing that it addressed was the reliability of the talk.origins website.  I note from the edit history that you seem to agree with Tzw about this.  However, in addition to winning accolades from the scientific community, this site has been nearly unanimously agreed to be reliable for use in articles on the creation-evolution controversy in this discussion: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10.  So please stop removing the link as a reference in this article.  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 14:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Science Article
The science article does not at all state that the term "evolutionist" is used by creationists for any purpose. That is factually incorrect. I removed the reference because it does not support the statement. Its an interesting article, though, and relevant to the history section. I added a reference there. My edit was reverted because the reference was "sufficient for an intro" and "supported later in the article." Neither is true. --Thesoxlost (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edit is a rampant anti-evolution POV push which removes all sources which are used to make any contention about creation believers which you find objectionable. Thus it's been reverted, and will be again. ThuranX (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ThuranX, my edit was an attempt to improve a POV article. I am a scientist; a neuroscientist, to be specific. I'm not a creationist. I believe there is overwhelming support for evolution. I also believe that the Science Article reference in no way supports the statement made in the wiki article.  Tzw100 is correct: saying that creationists use a term in a particular way for a particular purpose needs to be strongly supported by a solid reference, or it violates WP:POV.  Please re-read WP:POV and WP:etiquette.


 * This quote:

A major complaint of the Creationists, those who are committed to a Genesis-based story of origins, is that evolution--and Darwinism in particular--is more than just a scientific theory. They object that too often evolution operates as a kind of secular religion, pushing norms and proposals for proper (or, in their opinion, improper) action.


 * is the first sentence in an article that tries to explain what "evolution" is, what it has meant, and what it means now. This quote does not say anything about how creationists use the term "evolutionism" or "evolutionist." Nor does the article; elsewhere, "evolutionism" is used once, not in the context of how creationists use the term. I think that the equation of creationism and evolutionism is ridiculous; but the current wiki article is a thinly veiled anti-creationist rant that lacks support. This article needs to meet wikipedia standards. If you believe that it needs to make a point about how the term is used, then find a source to reference.  Do some research.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ThuranX, the purpose of this article is not to make POV statements about people of faith but rather to provide information about the term evolutionism and evolutionist. There has been no poll or study conducted to determine how many creationists, scientists, muslims, christians, atheists or anyone else uses the term and why.  Claims such as creationists use this term for purpose X to achieve goal Y are not even factually verifiable and are more akin to conspiracy theory. The term evolutionist is defined in the  [dictionary].  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So creationists use words by random accident rather than for a purpose? How ironic. This article must report clearly on the usage by many creationists, and by the tendency of scientists to avoid the term because of that creationist usage. . dave souza, talk 10:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They use it the same way someone would use the word atomist to describe something. SO what? That doesn't give you the right to say why and how it is used and the science article uses it as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Talkorigins archive removal
Please stop removing the talk.origins archive. This is considered a reliable source in articles on the creation-evolution controversy, per this discussion. So far these sources were removed three times, and reverted all three times by different editors. Someone was bold, but then reverted. The onus is now on that editor to discuss in the hopes that a new consensus will emerge, not to continue to edit war. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reasonable post, Silly rabbit. I hadn't seen that discussion board.  I find it hard to believe that TalkOrigins is a WP:RS, but I'll look over the discussion and won't make any changes to the TalkOrigins reference without discussion.  I believe the Science article deletion still stands, however.  The reference simply does not support the statement being referenced.  --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take your creationist POV to another wiki. TalkOrigins is absolutely RS, because it uses citations to confirm what it writes.  It functions as a well written review article.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I disagree with the last sentence. At any rate, I have provided a direct quotation of the first sentence of the science article, so that readers can more easily verify exactly what the source says: that creationists portray the theory of evolution as a secular religion.  This, at least, is fully supported by the quotation.  I have, in addition, provided a link to the toarchive article, which also supports the statement.  But discussion of the Science article should be undertaken above, in the thread entitled "Science Article".  Thanks,  siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 17:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Silly Rabbit. It looks like TalkOrigins is being treated like other self-published works, and considered on a case-by-case basis. If the author is considered an expert in the field, it should be allowed. I edited the page again keeping in mind the substantive complaints of those who objected. On Wikipedia, you can't make blanket statements like "Creationists use term X to mean Y" without hard evidence. The TalkOrigin site lists evidence in the form of plaques at the Institute of Creation Research. I've modified the page to make clear that we are talking about the ICR. This was an attempt to come to a synthesis and improve the article, and not to create or further an edit war.

I would strongly encourage those of you who want to say that "Creationists" use the term in this way to provide more references for other creationists using the term in this way. The ICR should not be considered to talk for all Creationists. As I said, I'm not a creationist, and I find the claims of the ICR laughable. But the integrity of wikipedia depends on sticking to very strict standards, even if that means watering down your own strongly held position to the key, supported points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesoxlost (talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another editor changed the site to read: "Some creationists... use these terms in an effort to make it appear the scientific theory is a form of secular religion." But as Silly Rabbit's quote makes clear, the article states that a "major complaint of the Creationists... is that evolution--and Darwinism in particular--is more than just a scientific theory. They object that too often evolution operates as a kind of secular religion." It may be the case that creationists use the term evolutionism as a form of religion, but all the article says is that they complain that it too often operates as a religion.  If you want to make this strong of a claim, you'll need to find another reference.  This Science article simply doesn't support that strong of a statement. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually don't care what creationists say. I care about NPOV.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)