Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary materialism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. There seems to be an approximately 83% ratio for deletion. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 07:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionary materialism
This article has been redirected and unredirected for a while now and I think it's best that we have it out here on AfD. The problem with this article is that it again represents original research of User:Ed Poor and continues to WP:FORK both the evolution and the materialism article. I'm not confident that such a subject actually exists except in the mind of creationists. While I thought that a redirect to materialism worked, I'm now inclined to say the page should be deleted outright because evolutionary materialism is a neologism and an inappropriate qualification for materialism. After all, we don't have people that are "plate tectonics materialists" or "solar nebula realists" or "faraday's law materialists" -- how can there be another paradigm from science "evolution" that has its own separate materialism? I submit that such a thing doesn't exist and so pursuant to the rules of forks an original research, this article should go. --Joshuaschroeder 18:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The arguments above are POV and misleading and personal attack (and even false in part: J've just added a reference into article that demonstrates it is not a neologism). mikka (t) 19:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unlike Unguided evolution, there is not enough content for this to stand alone. Should be merged if there is anything worthwile to merge. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  18:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Ben Aveling 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Vsmith 18:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term is in use and is even in the titles of chapters of a book, Social Transformations (Stephen K. Sanderson, 1999, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing.) "Original research" clause is inapplicable, since the article does not state any theories; it merely makes a definition and lists a couple of facts. Unlike "solar nebula" and other witty picks, the issue of evolution is right in the middle of a philosophical dispute and hence a special treatment is warranted. The claim that the "thing doesn't exist" is utterly ridiculous. mikka (t) 19:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the use of the term from the book, Mikkalai? --Joshuaschroeder 19:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I can give you an even better quote, that of an opponent of the "nonexisting thing": Father Ronald Ketteler, Director of Ecumenism and of Continuing Education of Priests, &c., &c., &c.:
 * "The positions taken by Richard Dawkins would be no surprise to anyone familiar with literature in the field since his reputation as a leading proponent of evolutionary materialism is well known."
 * See? "well known" by opponents, and I am no more discussing this issue. mikka (t) 19:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yikes, that is definitely a creationist screed if I've ever read one. And here I was hoping for an actual citation to a scholar who claims to outline "evolutionary materialism" as a separate discipline. As such, since Richard Dawkins wouldn't call himself an "evolutionary materialist", I don't think Wikipedia should be endorsing it either. Pushing a creationist POV seems to be the only purpose to this particular designation. --Joshuaschroeder 19:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to use the word "creationist" in a way some use the word "commie" :-). You also have to learn to see the differnce between "pushing" and "presenting" a POV. mikka (t) 20:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the two are one and the same, of course... &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-10-24 00:57:23Z
 * The reference turns out not to be relevant -- it's using the term "evolutionary materialism" to name a theory of history, not a position in philosophy of science. That's why it was in a sociology book. --FOo 02:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Highlighting the fundamental problem here. This reminds me of the deletion discussion for imaginary antecedent. This article might be salvageable if it covered the various only vaguely related definitions. As it is, the article just seems to serve as a reification (not quite a strawman, I suppose) for creationists to attack. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-10-24 02:15:43Z


 * 'Delete. POV forks are against policy & consensus. --FOo 19:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Forks of what? The submitter clamis it is fork of evolution and materialism, which is laughable. In the same way I may claim that Russian Orthodox Church is a fork of Eastern Orthodoxy, and must be speedily deleted on spot. mikka (t) 19:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Forks of evolution, materialism by means of the POV of creationism or intelligent design. --Joshuaschroeder 19:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Mikka. Usrful to have article on common POV in a topic even if it isn't the majority view. Capitalistroadster 19:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you indicate what POV this article is trying to illustrate and how it is not already covered in Wikipedia in an NPOV manner? To make a comparison, it would be like having an article about unobserved Gods and listing the pope, Billy Graham, and Louis Farrakhan as adherents to the belief. --Joshuaschroeder 20:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. I also agree with Joschuascroeder about the quotation which name-drops Richard Dawkins.  It does not establish that he calls himself an "evolutionary materialist"; I have a tough time making a judgment with the passage out of context, but it seems to be an ad hominem attack, too.  Anville 20:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen someone calling himself Evil Empire? Shall we delete this article as well? mikka (t) 20:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it your inclusionist idealization then that unobserved Gods should be an article as I described it above? --Joshuaschroeder 20:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean unobservable God? What's wrong with this notion? Why would you deny its article if the notion is in circulaiton an someone will describe it? Why it has less merit than "Capital gain" or "Permanent revolution"? mikka (t) 23:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What a perfect example of militant ignorance! I've just added a reference to a 1969 book and 1919 (!) articles, where the term is discused in detail, and here one sees blind fork-fork-fork parroting and pov-pov-pov powwow. mikka (t) 00:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article doesn't even establish that this is a significant idea among creationists interested in villifying their detractors. I don't see this as a POV fork, just an article about a movement that exists only in the imagination of a handful of its hypothetical opponents. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and Man in Black. Ed, please stop creating articles which are your Original Research on a Creationist view of Evolution. KillerChihuahua 20:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per JS and AMiB. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-10-23 20:56:10Z
 * Delete this POV fork too. If we have anything it should be at scientific materialism since evolution has little directly to do with it, but this is a already redirect to materialism. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, btw, you might as well delete category:Evolutionary materialists at the same time. It had until recently Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan in it. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Would that be included here, or need a seperate Cfd? Vsmith 21:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as mentioned above, per WP:NOR & WP:FORK. PJM 21:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork. Fredrik | tc 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find nothing objectionable in this article. It is relevant to debates over the teaching of Evolution, and it stands as a counterpart to any article on the "guided evolution" position. It is also potentially useful in helping understand the scientific method and what science is. I see no indication whatsoever of its being original research, nor do I see any indication that it represents the point of view of any contributor. P0M 03:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't find anything objectionable in the article, per se, but I do find the omission of the fact that this term appears to mean different things in different contexts to be objectionable. I would add other definitions if I felt qualified to. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-10-24 04:15:23Z
 * But that's exactly why we write articles here: to help understand how people use different terms. As a minimum you could have added a sentence of warning to potential readers, with examples of diffeent usag (you probably know them, since you make this statement). People use the word "asshole" in different meanings,but this is not the reason of deletion. mikka (t) 16:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV fork, one which doesn't even provide much information besides who has been labeled an "evolutionary materialist" by others. -Parallel or Together? 05:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article seems like a pointless POV fork from the real article on evolution. No actual atheist claims to believe in "evolutionary materialism" anyway; this is just something thrown out there by the creationists to try and slander them.  --Cyde 06:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * FALSE Roy Wood Sellars for 60 years described his views as "evolutionary materialism". Its main book is noline. You all are just lazy bunch of deniers. mikka (t) 17:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * comment Two comments, actually: Just because there is a book with a POV fork does not make it policy on WP to have an article on that same POV fork. Second comment: Personal attacks are not necessary. Please refrain from calling your fellow editors "lazy...deniers." KillerChihuahua 14:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Re first comment:Wrong again. As long as a POV is of a notable person, you cannot delete an article. Re second: I will repeat: you are hardline deniers twisting the policy to remove what you don't like: it is only wikipedia's author's POV which is disallowed. mikka (t) 16:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Re first response: The POV is of one (barely) noteable person, and is covered in his (very stubby) bio article. No one is trying to remove that from his bio. Re second response: Personal attacks are not sanctioned by WP policy, and switching from "lazy... deniers" to "hardline deniers" doesn't help much. An apology for the personal attack of calling everyone who doesn't agree with you "lazy" would be appropriate. KillerChihuahua 16:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. The phrase gets 520 Google hits which is enough to suppose that someone might try to search by the phrase. Durova 07:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to what, though? I doubt a redirect will help anyone searching for the term, since it does not have a consistent definition in literature (or at least Google's tiny subset thereof). Do we redirect to evolution, which is totally irrelevant to some uses, or to materialism, which is too broad to be useful? &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-11-27 01:29:49Z


 * Comment the other thing of course is that what he means by "evolutionary materialist" is really scientific humanism. Materialism is greedy reductionism in the context of morality (etc) and a holistic approach is better.  Dawkins and others self-identify as humanists for this very reason. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 11:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - by attempting to define a phrase used by creationists to label their opponents, this ends up restating their arguments and if need be should be redirected to creationism or to creation-evolution controversy, either of which could have a brief section defining such labels...dave souza 20:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork; by definition, scientific theories are not guided by God or divine beings. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 10:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Misunderstanding. It is atheist's definition of "science". I guess a couple of billion people strongly disagee. mikka (t) 16:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork.-gadfium 08:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * comment deleted* [sorry]
 * The above comment was left by User:128.232.236.55, who has no other edits to his/her name. I've left him/her a note that votes from non-logged-in users and brand-new users are not usually counted. --FOo 21:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; too much intellident design ;) Promotion of philosophical position. &mdash; RJH 00:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * delete as per nom, adding "-materialist" explains nothing. No content here other than taking material from evolution and painting crypto-POV shellac over it. Pete.Hurd 07:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - WAS 4.250 20:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Izehar 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.