User talk:NewGuy

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.Dunc|&#9786; 21:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Three reverts
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Dunc|&#9786; 21:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from articles such as Leonardo da Vinci without cause. Thank you. DJ Clayworth 22:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I may have been a little hasty in the undoing of your deletion. Reading it a little more closely it wasn't a very good section, but probably still best to discuss it on the talk page. DJ Clayworth 14:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

History of science
Okay, I agree on that section needs revision actually, but let me explain the history of evolutionary thought and how that relates to the history of creationism.

History of science
Concepts on origins Pre-Darwin were more philosophical and theological in context. They were rather a muddle, but there was discourse, and there were various ideas banded around such as Lamarckism and Divinely-guided evolution.

Then Darwin came along and our understanding of evolutionary theory increased, (albeit sometimes in fits and starts) up to the present day. Darwin (and his successors who are often undercredited) overturned those previous ideas. The division between science and theology became stronger as we understood science and the philosophy of science better.

As can be seen in the history of creationism article, the creation science movement was started in the 1960s as a reactionary movement against modern science.

So, Darwin couldn't have overturned "creation biology" because "creation biology" didn't exist at the same time as Darwin. Secondly, "creation biology" consists of very thinly disguised lies and wishful thinking. You can read an introduction to real biology here.

Consensus
Regardless of the above, on contentious issues you need to achieve consensus on talk pages first, and you should not violate the 3RR. Dunc|&#9786; 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 06:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)