User talk:Orangemarlin/Evolution-Creation Discussions 1

Evolution
Hi! I saw your edit on the talk page of Evolution, and, as it so happens I'm working on one of the main spin-offs of Evolution, Creation-evolution controversy, which has a highly inadequate section on the very point - affect of creationists on US education - that you feel strongly about, I was wondering if you'd care to help out? I'm afraid the whole thing needs work: it seems to have been written with a little too much attempts to be "balanced", and you know what that does. I'm ruthlessly removing that undue weight in favour of facts. Anyway, cheers! Adam Cuerden talk 09:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Adam, thank you. This topic infuriates me, because I just despise the Christian Right in the US.  I'll read over your work, and make some changes or suggestions.  I have been searching through Nexis and Lexis to see if there have been any good articles on science education in the US.

Yes I think this should be addressed someplace. It is a prominent feature of the debate, at least in the US, and probably other countries as well. Claiming that teaching children evolution harms them irreparably is one of the creationists greatest weapons. Of course, one hears the opposite charge from those who are in favor of teaching evolution. This is where the battle between the two camps becomes most pitched. I will look at that section.--Filll 17:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since teaching of fact based science, e.g. evolution, is the right thing to do, the creationist charges mean nothing. Creationists are trying to foist their personal religious beliefs on those of us who find it disgusting and against the US Constitution.  One day someone has got to explain to me the difference between our Religious Terrorists and the ones in Iran.OrangeMarlin 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you really want someone to explain the difference between what you call "Religious Terrorists" - probably like me - and fanatic Muslims? Or are you just saying that? I am a Jewish Christian (if you want to use labels) and so I am probably qualified to explain the distinction; I have several Muslim or ex-Muslim friends. :-)  God bless, standonbibleTalk!
 * Jewish Christian? My personal mitzvah is to ignore you.OrangeMarlin 01:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, you asked for it. Doesn't sound particularly open-minded to me.  Don't you ever think about what's on the other side when we walk out of here? standonbibleTalk! 12:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you to come to my user section and babble about your pathetic intellectual laziness.  I don't like the Christian right, and I particularly dislike Jews who deny who they are.  But luckily you evolved from lower organisms, so through natural selection, we developed intellect and reasoning, and you were able to make a choice like you did, despite how disgusting it might be.  22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that WP:NPA doesn't hold true on user talk pages. Oh, well. I believe you did ask someone to come and explain "the difference between" - even though it was said in jest you never know when you will be taken seriously. Speaking of seriously - don't you ever think about what happens when we walk out of here? standonbibleTalk! 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm.  I actually don't believe there is a difference, and it doesn't have to be explained to me.OrangeMarlin 07:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Down in flames
The new proposed section and the new article on Fact and Theory has gone down in flames with a lot of anger, at least so far. I refuse to get into edit wars. I have answered the attacks as best as I can on the talk page at Talk:Evolution. I have also compiled a comparison of the various versions at Talk:FactandTheoryComparison. Take a look. What do you think?--Filll 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A compromise was proposed by Axel that looks not much better and maybe even worse. I am stunned at how they do not seem to get it.--Filll 20:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I went into great detail on [] to try to explain what is wrong with their approach. As I said there, I am now starting to understand evolutionary scientists have such problems with the creationists:
 * the evolution scientists refuse to be clear, and want to put on airs and be abstruse and use big words
 * evolution scientists often use double talk and newspeak and words with multiple meanings
 * evolution scientists use confusing quotes from people they regard as important figures in science, but the fame of these people means nothing to the average Joe
 * the evolution scientists want to dazzle with detail instead of just being short and succinct.
 * I think there would be problems with creationists even if the evolution supporters did not cripple themselves beforehand with these sorts of self-afflicted difficulties. All that a lot of their arguing does is make the situation worse. No wonder there are problems.--Filll 23:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We went at it hammer and tongs over here if you want to take a look. Wow. I am amazed at how they do not want to write clearly and do not want to give up Gould or even explain Gould.--Filll 00:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that to some of these people, Gould is like God writing on stone tablets. But to me, he is just a geologist who coauthored the punctuated equilibrium version of evolution. He was not even the sole author. He was not even the lead author. On the strength of that he obtained a tenured position in the Harvard Geology Department. Don't get me wrong, it is not a bad department. But in the Earth Sciences, Harvard is nothing to write home about. This is not some sort of incredible pinacle. And Geology is sort of a crappy subject. It is not even biology, and certainly not chemistry or physics or mathematics (in the pecking order of prestige). Other schools in the Earth Sciences are far more prestigious than Harvard. Then Gould stopped doing real work, and proceded to do some popularization. Which is ok. Someone has to do it. In addition, the text we are arguing about does not contradict what I am saying at all, only if they pick and choose among the quotes in that Gould article and discard certain things can they create the appearance of disagreement. Which they seem to want to do. And this article is not some sort of incredibly deep piece of writing. It was not peer reviewed. It has been reprinted a few times, that is true. It appears to contradict itself if you do not read it carefully and know something about the scientific meaning of the words he is using, even though he attempts to explain (and does a lousy job). The statements in this article are even contradicted to various degrees by the popular articles about a good 15 or 20 or more other scientists in evolution. It is just one article anyway. Why are we arguing about this one article? Even if it was peer-reviewed, having done a fair amount of peer-reviewing myself, I think that does not mean too much.--Filll 00:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I might have argued Axel147 to a standstill, at least for now. Slrubenstein is the other main editor that desperately wants to keep the text as obscure as possible, and retain as much of his original wording as he can. He even claims that he got it from Hawking (with no citation of course). A ridiculous claim! I checked Hawking, and of course Hawking is far closer to what you and I wrote. I suspect what is going on here is that we have 2 editors who are anxious to keep things as they were. Axel147's main argument is that it is better to try to convince creationists with the statement that "evolution is so well supported that we call it a fact, and so evolution is a fact and no one is allowed to argue with facts" or something like that. Of course, this has not been a particularly fruitful method of arguing with creationists, and has been tried for a long long time. I do not think anything is particularly useful to someone really determined (like the real radical fundamentalist creationists), but for those in the middle, we have a chance of swaying them if we are very clear. Making gratuitous assertions, declaring evolution correct and a fact by fiat, and similar tactics is not going win the field or be particularly convincing to anyone. I am going to regroup and change the proposed text now that they have exposed some areas that are causing difficulty. --Filll 14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would counsel patience. I am now compiling a much more complete list of scholarly references and citations for this. In particular, I believe I have a National Academy of Sciences official definition of the word "fact" that agrees completely with what you and I wrote. I am going to research this carefully and then revisit the issue. It is also now far clearer to me what is going on with these two editors. This section was written years ago. They have defended it for a long time. They feel some sort of ownership towards it, otherwise they would not bring that issue up so often. I also have found some of the text they suggested WAS plagiarized from some uncited source, but not Hawking. I read the Hawking chapter they claim their wording comes out of (uncited) and it does not. That is why they do not take me up on the challenge to compare the two. So frankly, they do not have a leg to stand on. That is why they are getting nasty. It is a sign that they are losing and know it. They hope to just scare us away with bluster and BS, but no real substance. On my background, I have 4 graduate degrees (including a phd in mathematical physics) and 2 undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics. I have never studied biology or evolution formally, but only tangentially. I have done years of research in physics and mathematics. I have also been caught repeatedly in debates with creationists who want to claim a variety of things: And lots of similar things. One does not have to have very many discussions before one hears the same complaints about evolution over and over. There really are not very many arguments they have or use, and they have changed very little in the last 150 years or so. The most common and frequently used argument is the charge that "evolution is only a theory". So I have heard it plenty of times before. But since I am a working scientist, of course I have had to think very carefully over and over about what is a theory or a fact or data or hypothesis etc.--Filll 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * science is the work of the devil
 * all those who disagree with them are evil (Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Presbyterians, Methodists, Orthodox, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Shintoists, homosexuals, Planned Parenthood, blacks, evolution scientists, doctors, school teachers, liberals, Lutherans, etc)
 * scientists are satan worshippers
 * evolution is a religion
 * evolution has caused many more deaths and human misery in its 150 years of existence than 2000 years of Christianity
 * evangelical christians are persecuted terribly in the US at the moment and everyone is unfair to them, including those terrible horrible liberals, and even the republicans cannot be trusted and are liars because they do not seriously abide by republican principles
 * God wants us to despoil and ruin the earth because if we pollute it and ruin it, it will force Jesus to come back to create a paradise on earth
 * Homosexuals should be rounded up and put to death as soon as possible
 * the separation of church and state was a mistake made by the founders, or a dirty trick introduced by evil doers and satanists, etc
 * We have to repeal the separation of church and state in the US as soon as possible
 * we should not have so many checks and balances in place in the legal system for capital crimes. At the first hint that there is a suspicion of someone's guilt, the first time they are accused, they should be executed immediately, since there are never any mistakes made ever by the legal system or the police.
 * The US should use nuclear weapons on all of our enemies and lay waste to most of the earth because this is biblically predicted and will bring Jesus back to create a paradise for all evangelical Christians (and all those we disagree with and hate will be in hell because God said so)
 * we have to impeach several tens of thousands US judges that are currently sitting on the bench as soon as possible so "right-thinking" judges can be installed that will rule in a godly way against those horrible evil people we disagree with who are persecuting us

Cobb County etc
I did not start the article but I am thinking about it. I have thought about it and possibly an article about the hypocrisy of religious fundamentalists. Three Evangelical leaders who were ranting and raving about the evils of homosexuality have had to resign in 2006 for being homosexual. If one made a list of the Bakers, and Garner Ted Armstrong and so on, one could have a huge long list of fundamentalists who have embarassed themselves in various ways. Cobb County and about 5 or 6 other school boards lost in court when they wanted to put stickers or call for disclaimers etc. I am compiling the list with citations for my second attack on the "fact and theory" article. I am working on a revision now.--Filll 18:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Effect of Controversy on Education
You've been adding this section to Creation and evolution in public education. It seems to me to be a worthwhile topic, but as posted, the opinions are uncited and appear to breach WP:NOR: if it's your own research, synthesis or opinion, Wikipedia can't accept it. What it needs is citations from reliable sources giving opinions which you can summarise. The concepts look familiar, and I'd hope you can find someone notable making the points to give verifiable references. .. dave souza, talk 22:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it all came from sources: cites are needed so that it can stand up to attempts to remove it. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 22:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A small point: links look much better if you put [ and ] on each side of them, and after the url itself put a space then the title of the web page as it appears: for example, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

NASA? what did NASA do?--Filll 16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at some of these quotes
You will love them ! look here--Filll 01:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked the quotes. They are definitely disturbing, however. This is how many people think. And one does see it on Wikipedia, where they think that by being generally annoying that they will win converts or win some debate somehow. I am stunned at their transparency, and how they continue to use old arguments that were dismissed 30 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago. And with the internet, they can just cut and paste the arguments. If one line of attack fails, they just switch to another, ignoring the fact that they have been stopped dead in their tracks and made to look like complete fools on a separate line. When they ask questions, they are not interested in the answers. They are trying to stump what they view as someone working for Satanic forces (like a Jew, or a Catholic, or a Muslim, or a mainline protestant; all of whom they might call atheists). I personally believe they are doing the opposite of what they intend, if you look at the statistics for what people profess to believe. Mainline religious belief in the US is decreasing, although in the case of evolution they have managed to convince a very large fraction of the public that they are correct, or that there is some serious problem with evolution. I am not totally patient, as you can see by some of my replies. A lot of time I just get annoyed and blast them very harshly or call them names (sometimes indirectly and sometimes pretty directly). --Filll 13:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Other articles
I am wondering about an article about Falsifiability in evolution or an article about Comparison of evolution and creationism, or both, or something similar. The thing is, there needs to be some place where a reader can go to find out information to defend themselves or their viewpoints. If a creationist wants to attack evolution, he has access to literally hundreds or even thousands of websites and books and other resources. The websites are easy to use in particular; they just cut and paste. No thought required. Someone undecided who wants to investigate the situation will get buried in a flood of creationist nonsense. The science side is either too technical, too hard to read, or too hard to find. Even here on Wikipedia, as we have seen, there is not much material presenting the science side or countering the evolution side, compared to the creationist side. I did a quick search and I found a plethora of articles on Wikipedia about creationism, and very little that presents the evolution side, and counters the evolution arguments effectively. Even the little article you and I worked on about "theory and fact" ran into a lot of trouble because the evolution supporters really do not understand the nature of the threat (of course others helped as well and I do not mean to belittle their contributions). Evolution supporters think, well since no creationist has won a lawsuit, then there is no problem. They think, well only dopes would believe the creationist viewpoint, so there is no problem. They think, it is only the stupid and uneducated who believe in creationism, so no problem. They think, well someone else will do it, so no problem. They think, well I have more important things to do and it is beneath me to explain my science, so I am not going to bother. However, as pointed out in this article, only 12% of the public surveyed believe in evolution. The survey also points out that many people are confused. And evolution is just the first part of science that is going to be attacked; already the big bang has come under attack, the dynamo theory of the earth, plate tectonics, radioactive dating, thermodynamics, the doppler shift, the speed of light and all kinds of other areas. And if evolution falls, other areas in science will not be immune. Even medicine is not immune, because it might be viewed as going against "god's will". Very little of science or technology is not vulnerable. I am wondering if it would not be worth it to have more articles that organize the material that presents the science side in a coherent way, that is easily accessible, here on Wikipedia. That way someone like yourself would not be stuck in the same situation as you found yourself. Lawyers trying to build cases against creationists would have access to organized material that they could use to get up to speed quickly while building their cases. School boards and teachers would have access to material that they could use to defend themselves. Parents would have access to material to help them school their children. People would have access to material to help them defend themselves when they are attacked by creationists. People undecided or confused could get access to material to help them get a clearer picture of reality so they can make their own minds up. Just food for thought. Maybe we could even have an organized project here on Wikipedia.--Filll 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

For your consideration
Take a look at the draft: Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft--Filll 19:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

other article/contribution
Just so we do not overlap too much, I am working on a table like we did for gravity and evolution, but this time for evolution and creationism to compare them head to head.--Filll 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A very crude rough draft for your consideration is at Talk:Evolution/evolutionreligiondraft. Take a look.--Filll 23:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why I gave you the draft. I wrote some more as well. I am just playing some ideas and wording. I do not want it very long and I want it punchy. So it needs some careful thought.--Filll 04:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

For further edification
I do not know if you have seen but I think you might enjoy it. For example. listen to. --Filll 17:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure you have heard that a large fraction of the US population believes it has been abducted by aliens at some point in their lives. And you might have heard of the panics in rural communities about farm animal abduction by UFOs as well. Here is a site that spoofs that a bit with a pretty funny video:

Hmm...--Filll 15:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.cowabduction.com/

Here is my suggestion for dealing with creationists
A number of extended articles that address various creationist attacks be constructed, with themes such as


 * evolution is science, not religion, but creationism is not science (this is where that table comparing evolution and creationism will go; it must be reasonably good since it seems to have the velvet elvis so upset)
 * evolution is falsifiable, but creationism is not (this article is waiting for input from eve etc who claim they can give references etc, then it will be its own article)
 * evolution is both a theory and a fact (as you know I am rewriting this to answer the complaints of those two editors who fought me so hard on this; I think the revised version will be pretty good)
 * evolution is supported by the vast majority of scientists (I have a draft of this I am working on you can see if you want; I have been attacked on this issue so often I think it all needs to be compiled in one place to shoot down this ridiculous argument)
 * evolution has been observed (would include speciation and field and other observations)

and so on. These articles would be stuffed with references and links to relevant websites. That way, someone from a lawfirm, or a school board, or a person trying to defend themselves against creationism can quickly find a suite of articles (we might even make a table listing them all) that organize this material and document the defense against creationism.

I suggest that the evolution article include only a very small controversy/confusion/misconception/defense section with summary sentences of the main points, and links to the extended articles. I think that it is better to have just minimal material rather than the confused mess that presently is in that article. Also, I wonder if having a lot of the material about the controversy in the evolution article does any good. Is it accessible? Does it attract creationist trolls? The evolution article is too long anyway. Better to farm this stuff out to other articles, since this stuff is not really science per se, but defensive material. Let the evolution article be about science mainly.

At least one summary article, maybe like the present controversy article (hopefully rewritten) be produced to organize and present the material in abbreviated form, as well as provide links to the extended articles.

Other articles such as "hypocrisy of creationists" (or "biblical errancy") are possible, demonstrating that literal belief in biblical accounts would require a stationary earth, a flat earth, a square earth, problems with tree rings and coral rings and layers of benthic sediments and dynamo theory and the value of pi and knowledge of teleomeres and optical refraction and Doppler shifts and a huge amount of other similar things. Basically, if one accepts the bible as literally true in all aspects, one has to deal with several hundred thousand documented mistakes and inconsistencies and then a huge volume of disagreements with scientific predictions, like the sphericity of the earth. Of course, what is common is that even biblical inerrancy advocates only believe PARTS of the bible are inerrant, and reject or interpret the parts they disagree with in whatever way they choose. This is what I call the hypocrisy. Either the bible is a scientific text, or it is not. One cannot claim that evolution is wrong but then ignore all the other conflicts with science in the bible or sweep them under the carpet. That sort of reasoning is pure hypocrisy.

Comments?--Filll 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I sent you an email with the address of the draft to look at. I have to be better about constructing these drafts quietly first with a few friends before we open them up to widespread attack and comment. Otherwise, the energy just gets dissipated in fighting nonsense and it distracts from making the best possible draft we can. After we can expose the drafts to criticism and use that as a second stage to build the articles, but to fend off attacks at the same time as building them might not be the best strategy, frankly.--Filll 21:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution award
And for today's question, is there such a thing as intelligent trolling? Or is it completely unintentional? .. dave souza, talk 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh. Did I write "intelligent trolling" somewhere? Thanks for the award. I'm going to treasure it :) Orangemarlin 22:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now don't forget to indent your replies! Just a Scottish sense of humour – I bit my tongue and didn't ask that question elsewhere.....dave souza, talk 17:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationist Challenge
I would like to challenge anyone to find me 5 creationist scientists that are currently prominent scientists. The requirements are: especially in their lairs... dave souza, talk 21:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * currently alive and actively working in science
 * believes in biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy
 * works in a part of science that overlaps with creationist claims, such as biology and in particular, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, genetics, etc. --Filll 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Debates
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon - it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys [sic] back to its flock to claim victory. --Anonymous reviewer of Eugenie Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction.--Filll 18:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you will enjoy these

 * John Lofton debating Frank Zappa on Crossfire
 * The American View —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 05:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Santorum
At least from what I have heard and read, it still carries quite a bit of weight. It is in the notes and so carries some force of law apparently. So it is not really toothless. We should get a good reference for that. It sounds like the typical crap out of Congress to me. How can they have a bill or amendment that does not pass but still carries the weight of law? But apparently, due to some convoluted lawyer trick, it can be enforced and is expected to be enforced- it is actually something that has me quite concerned. This seems dumb to me. We need a source on this.--Filll 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction. This apparently is another creationist lie.. Damn these guys fight dirty.--Filll 06:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually checked the law on this one, mainly because if it had passed with the language intact, I was hoping to find the court cases that would strike it down as unconstitutional. However, what I discovered was that it was not law, and, therefore, meant nothing.  Yes the right wing lies--that's how they cheated the country out of a couple of elections and how they got our soldiers into the Iraq morass.  Don't be so surprised that they fight dirty.  That's why I believe you, me and others on here draw the line with facts and verification, and we don't let the Creationists foist their incredible stories onto the public without a critical eye.  Sometimes the small things really matter.  Orangemarlin 13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I had heard the statement that the "Santorum Amendment" still carried some force of law even though it was not passed but only in ancillary discussion documents in multiple semi-reputable venues, I bought it. I know how there are a lot of funny twists and turns in the law that can make something that seems improbable actually be correct, so I thought this might be one of those cases. Then when I went to check (thanks to your prodding), I came up with several articles that asserted that this claim was just puffery. No substance at all. I was stunned. I had been taken in. Completely fooled. I feel gullible and naive and used and lied to. I think I had even heard this contention in documentaries on NPR and by lawyers discussing the issue on CSPAN (not that lawyers do not get paid to lie for a living, and not that there are no lies on CSPAN or NPR, but I expected more I guess).--Filll 14:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationism
Wow, you were right. There really is a heated discussion at that article. Religious based articles are difficult to make NPoV, as they are driven by Religious PoV's. As I'm an atheist, my views in that discussion probably wouldn't help things any. GoodDay 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Creationists state that believe in Evolution is equal to atheism, so there you go. It is battle that would make a Leafs vs. Habs contest a walk in the park.  Orangemarlin 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. Creationism, Evolutionism, Atheism etc. All these subjects & related subjects are PoV driven. There could never be true NPoV in any of them. GoodDay 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I think you're both wrong on that. To get a NPOV article on the subject, you simply describe the subject, being careful to avoid any emotion-laden wording, in a neutral tone. You don't endorse any judgements. The problem is not that such a thing can't be written - it's that the majority of editors in most articles, particularly controversial ones, don't want to write such an article! They have axes to grind one way or another, and can't or won't discipline themselves to avoid using snarl words and pushing judgements. Nor can they stand to leave an NPOV article about something they have a religious stake in as is - they feel compelled and justified in 'correcting' it. And it's not just adherents of traditional religions that have this problem, those whose edits are affected in the same way by their faith in a civil religion are really no different. Arker 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As soon as I hear "civil religion" my alarm bells go off. Oh brother...So what IS the definition of religion anyway? I think it is a definition that changes minute to minute, depending on the needs of the person who uses the term. And the definition used often times is not even in a dictionary. If it is, it will not be the same one used all the time.--Filll 23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a particularly difficult to understand phrase. An example on my radar right now - an editor is in the process of thoroughly vandalising Anarchism in the United States because it disagrees with his civil religion. He has a faith in some form of social anarchism that causes him to exhibit the same sort of dogmatic and categorical assertions, the same inability to understand contradictory evidence, that you would see on different subjects from a christian or islamic fundamentalist. The sad thing is, much of that article was written by a similiarly religious devotee of anarcho-capitalism, and it could really use some input from the anarcho-socialist. But he's not giving any useful input, instead he's furiously deleting accurate and sourced material that contradicts his dogma. When any ideology becomes an item of faith and dogma to adherents, it has become in effect a civil religion, at least for those adherents.
 * Since editors are mostly volunteers, they gravitate toward subjects they have such strong feelings about - the very ones that they are unlikely to be capable of dealing with in a NPOV way. Arker 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As soon as I hear "you're both wrong", I'm assuming someone is trying to get an argument going. It's pretty easy to write these evolution-related articles, because there is no write or wrong, just the "facts" ma'am.  Evolution is a fact.  Everything else is faith and pseudoscience.  And anyone who presumes to know my religion is sorely wrong.  I'm a kosher druid.  LOL.  Orangemarlin 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that, and that's not my intention. I agree evolution is a fact, if you dig back through the history of my edits on the evolution and talk:evolution pages you'll see that very clearly, even if my name hasn't stuck in your brain. But even there, it's not only religious anti-evolutionists who violate NPOV. I remember one instance where an anti-religious author insisted that evolution proved christianity wrong and atheism correct. He was no more NPOV than the Jerry Fallwell brigade, and I reverted his changes the same as theirs. If you're a kosher druid you certainly shouldn't have a hard time grasping the concept I'm getting at here. ;) Arker 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC


 * I do not think OM has trouble understanding. I have personally seen him revert many atheist and anti-religious rants in the interests of NPOV.--Filll 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

 "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate." So far so WP:NPOV. "When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." This is where the motes and beams in eyes bit comes in: unfortunately adherents have limitless sensitivity to any possible slight to their cause, like describing other viewpoints as required. Which is where careful attention to the rest of the policy and to Neutral point of view/FAQ is required, along with WP:V and WP:NOR to ensure that opinions are properly sourced, not the opinions of the editors. It tends to work out, even if some of the faithful go away muttering. .. dave souza, talk 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that this is a good lesson. I think we do a great job with these articles.  Now, I had to go through a personal epiphany to keep from calling every single Creationist a blankety blank, but I really appreciate the NPOV of these articles.  It's great to reference the Evolution article for an unbiased source for counterpoints in anti-Evolution discussions with politicians and school boards.  Even though I agree that editors should not give their opinion, it is clear that the best editors are both passionate and knowledgeable about the subject AND they are able to write without injecting their opinion. Orangemarlin 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is quite easy to be NPOV on creationism and evolution articles. It is just that the "true believers" do not want to hear that the scientists who subscribe to their viewpoint often bought they degrees from diploma mills run out of a gas station or a PO box. And the creationists use a definition of "religion" that includes toilet cleaning and dog walking. It is hard for true believers to deal with the fact that well over 99.9% of the scientists who work in biology and fields that deal with evolution disagree with them. When you report on the cold hard facts, they blow a gasket. And that is where the trouble starts.--Filll 00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion religious viewpoints should be given full credence and respectful assessment in terms of theology, or whatever it's called for non theists. Nowt wrong with Zen and the art of toilet cleaning. Of course when religious folks claim it's science, then it has to be assessed as science. Which is where diploma mills/gas stations don't count :) .. dave souza, talk 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the most popular smears that creationists use against evolution is that it is a form of religion, the religion known as "atheism, humanism, materialism, naturalism, satanism, communism, naziism, etc". And when you ask them what makes it a religion, it is that people pursue it vigorously and are interested in it. Just as a person who cleans a toilet well pursues it vigorously. I have had this conversation with many of them, and they assert in the boldest possible terms that cleaning a toilet or having a bowel movement in the morning is a religion. So this way, they can decide science is as religion, and therefore cannot be taught in schools. Smart huh?--Filll 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I heard that the faith is undergoing a schism, and now will be divided into a Church of the Floaters and a Church of the Sinkers.--Filll 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out this video
--Filll 05:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well done. I uploaded it to my iPod for comfort when I read some of the articles on here. Thanks for the link.  Orangemarlin 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)