Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level of support for evolution


 * 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 was keep - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Level of support for evolution

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article in a previous incarnation survived deletion through “no consensus” as it was hoped by the community that improvements could be made to the article to keep it neutral, verifiable, and reliable. Unfortunately, this has proven to be an impossible task because of the nature and scope of the article itself. I propose this deletion after working for some time to try to improve the article content and now coming to the conclusion that, as an article, it cannot survive for very serious editorial reasons.

Much of the content of this article can and does belong on Wikipedia. For example, Project Steve is mentioned in its own article and appropriate parent articles such as creation-evolution controversy. The various opinion polls can be elucidated and outlined such locations as well. The problem is the original synthesis of the article described in the next paragraph which is specifically problematic in light of Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.

The article as it is formed functions basically as an undercover creationist POV-fork of the creation-evolution controversy article. This fact may be difficult for some to see, but consider that the article takes as its main thesis that there exists a way to gauge the “level of support” for the scientific concept of evolution by means of opinion polling, open letters, and the like. This very particular and peculiar point-of-view cannot accommodate the fact that no scientific theory in the context of science (which is the context in which evolution is defined, supported, and described) is “supported” by such means. We do not subject the theory of relativity to an article regarding opinion polls on the subject. Support for the principle of least action is not gauged in our encyclopedia by counting how many open letters were written regarding the subject. Even more controversial scientific subjects such as the Big Bang or the Gaia hypothesis do not have articles that treat the subjects in such a way. The only reason we have such an article ostensibly about “evolution” is because we are effectively accommodating a uniquely creationist POV-pushing perspective of evolution and how its support should be “measured”.

Consideration for this deletion proposal is guided in part by guidelines for how to cover science at Wikipedia. In particular, discussions about science that are neutral need to deal with science as it is evaluated by reliable and verifiable sources. Polls, open letters, and opinion pieces are not how this is done for scientific subjects. To advance the idea that a scientific principle can have its support gauged in such a fashion is a POV which is obviously at odds with how we have dealt with scientific subjects in the past.

We have an old problem with such problematic content forks at Wikipedia regarding evolution. I would remind the community of this AfD which was ostensibly on the same subject and was deleted for reasons similar to the ones I outline here. I believe that precedent for deleting articles of this sort is well-established and that the community can work to include the verifiable content in other articles.

--ScienceApologist 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per the well-reasoned nomination. Content-forking issues aside, this is a fundamentally unencyclopedic essay: a well-written and well-cited essay, but the lack of encyclopedic value makes this, in my opinion, high-class WP:NFT. This sort of thing is precisely what I mean:


 * "This is definitely true in science, and the only thing in science that matters is whether the data available match the predictions of a given scientific theory. If they do, then the theory gains support among the scientific community. In this case, the polls do confirm that evolution is the dominantly accepted theory attempting to explain the diversity of the earth's life forms among scientists.


 * There is never absolute support of all scientists for any theory, however. There are always alternative theories that exist and garner support. It is also important to remember, as Guy Woods writes, "It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world."


 * Now that is fundamentally what I mean: a good essay, but not acceptable from an encyclopedic standpoint. This will get you an A at your A-levels, but a delete at an encyclopedia. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A single disputed paragraph at the very end of an article doesn't warrant deletion of the entire article; this is a reason to make that paragraph more NPOV (I imagine it would be easy to simply quote an organization or expert in science stating that science is based on evidence rather than popular opinion, thus not even making it necessary for Wikipedia to affirm such a clearly factual statement), not to delete the article. You seem to feel that this paragraph is characteristic of the entire article, but that doesn't seem to be the case to me. The topic itself is encyclopedic, as it is a noteworthy issue in the creation-evolution debate about which there is much misunderstanding, making an article on this very valuable for reporting on the facts and claims of both sides. This is not an essay, because it is not making an argument: nowhere in the article is it argued that a theory needs the "absolute support of all scientists" (not even in the above quote), nor is the Guy Woods quote relevant (because the article doesn't say that a side is wrong or right based purely on popularity), and if you mean to apply that logic to science, you will end up abandoning both evolution and claims like "the Earth revolves around the Sun" or "if you drop an apple, it will fall because of gravity". You seem to be making counter-arguments against claims the article doesn't actually make. -Silence 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The quality of the writing is beyond question, but I feel that this article is trying to be a secondary source rather than reflecting our status as a tertiary source of information.  The message is important, but it should be covered in other, less inherently-biased, articles. Tevildo 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There aren't any other articles that can cover this topic in sufficient detail, and this article is not (or at least need not be) a secondary source (anymore than, say, Scientific opinion on climate change is) because there are plenty of secondary sources which cover this topic, as noted by Filll. -Silence 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. None of the above claims are both (a) accurate and (b) reason to delete this article. First, the contents of this article cannot be moved to Project Steve (where they would be largely off-topic) or Creation-evolution controversy (where they simply wouldn't fit; that page is already 104 kb long!!!). Second, this article is not a POV fork of any article at all; indeed, that is impossible because there is no other article that specifically covers this topic. ScienceApologist's claim that this is an "undercover creationist POV fork" is both absurd (the article was created by User:Filll, one of the strongest anti-creationists on Wikipedia) and a clear example of failing to assume good faith. Third, this article does not have a "thesis", it has a topic. Encyclopedia articles do not make arguments; they report on noteworthy subjects, and the level of popular support for evolution is a noteworthy subject, by virtue of its being so frequently discussed, debated, and disputed in the creation-evolution controversy.
 * Fourth, ScienceApologist consistently misunderstands the clear fact (which no one else has failed to notice, even other critics of this article) that the word support in this context refers to popular support (i.e., whether a person supports or opposes something), not to evidence or arguments used to support a claim. To conflate these two very different meanings is an example of the equivocation fallacy, and while the article itself is quite careful never to equivocate on this matter, nor even to leave any ambiguity on it (hence the dab notice at the top of the article), ScienceApologist is not demonstrating any such compunctions in trying to dismiss this article with mere word-games. This is especially surprising considering how many times the distinction has been explained to ScienceApologist on Talk:Level of support for evolution. (This misunderstanding of his was also his motivation for trying to repeatedly delete this article by unilateral means shortly after it passed its last AfD; his appeal to AfD here seems to simply be a last resort after failing either to delete it himself or to convince others that he is correct.) As for Big Bang and Gaia hypothesis, both are much less socially controversial than evolution (and the latter isn't noteworthy enough to have a big series of articles).
 * This article is not a biology article, anymore than creation-evolution controversy is. It is a sociological article about the phenomenon of varying degrees of popular support for evolutionary theory in different groups, times, places, etc.; it is not about the evidence used to support the theory of biological evolution, which is already covered at Evidence of evolution. Notability (science) (which is a proposed guideline, not a guideline) therefore doesn't apply here, except indirectly.
 * As for "Evolution poll", that article was, at the time of AfD, an unencyclopedic unreferenced stubby opinion-piece. It was, in other words, precisely the opposite of Level of support for evolution, which is well-referenced, neutral, lengthy, and encyclopedic. The majority of the article in question was also a rant about the reliability of polling, not actual information about the level of popular support for evolution; and the title was malformed and bizarre. All of this makes attempts to judge this page based on that one useless. Their topical similarities are purely superficial, and even if they weren't, almost all of the delete votes were about the contents. -Silence 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not voting on this one, at least not yet... but if the article is kept (and I think the above poster provided valid reasons why it should) it needs some copy-editing to adopt a fully encyclopedic tone. Some statements, like "it is likely that there will be more conflict and controversy in the future," and use of the term "unfortunately" could be attributed or removed to better suit a factual entry.  I think it's informative, and certainly well referenced, but it does need a little attention.  ◄ Zahakiel ►  20:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here I agree. Votes on an AfD like this are a reflection of the acceptability of the topic, not of the specific contents of the current article. There are plenty of areas of improvement for this page. -Silence 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The bottom line to me is that the article appears to be generally well referenced and objective and which analyzes the unique social side of these creationist vs evolution debates. To fail the original research test, this article would have to be, as a whole, clearly forming an original opinion about the subject.  But instead it looks like the article is collecting well documented major examples of how the various groups perceive evolution and creationism in context.  Finally, the nominator complains about the use of polls, but in this case the article isn't using polls to validate the biological science of evolution, but is rather talking about a social phenomenan closely associated with the study and education of evolution and creationism and brings up polls as examples of the social issues in play. And even if you believe that the article presents some of the information in a slightly biased fashion (eg I think it uses weasel words like "frequently" and "often" too much) that would be an issue for clean-up and talk page discussion and not for an afd discussion on deleting the entire article.  Thus while I think the article could stand some minor rewording and clean-up, I don't see any need to delete the whole thing. Dugwiki 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would probably support a rename of the article to something like "Social reaction to evolution vs creationism debates". That might make it more clear that the article isn't attempting to "validate" a scientific theory, but rather to present interesting and notable social issues tied to the way people discuss it in public forums. Dugwiki 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the rest of your comment entirely (especially the fact that the article "isn't using polls to validate the biological science of evolution", nor to do the opposite), but I don't think that renaming would be very effective, mainly because this article doesn't describe how people react to the creation-evolution debates, but rather how they react to evolution. The creation-evolution debates are what makes this topic noteworthy (there aren't comparable creation-gravity debates, else that topic would also merit articles), but it's not the be-all and end-all of this article. -Silence 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's an interesting point on the rename suggestion. It might be worth thinking about possible modifying the article to more clearly discuss both social reaction to evolution AND social reaction to creationism.  It does cover some reaction to creationism, though, as in the section talking about the Steve list as a reaction to creationist claims of acceptance by a wide cross-section of the scientific community. Dugwiki 22:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But Project Steve is worded not as a rejection of creationism, but as an affirmation of evolution. (Hence it leaves the door open for theistic evolution, which is arguably a form of creationism.) Thus, although it is indeed a reaction to the creation-evolution social controversy, its primary relevance to the Level of support for evolution article is that it is one of many indicators of the level of support for evolution among scientists, and that it is also indirectly an indicator of the ongoing dispute over this level. -Silence 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The standards for deletion should be consistent and the bar should be set rather high. Reading the article I found information that was favorable to both sides of the issues and also found an article that was fleshed out and well sourced as well as the topic being notable in our society today. I can't help but think that perhaps part of the reason for wishing to see deletion may be due to a personal repugnance with the subject matter rather than a well warranted reason for removal. Bbagot 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination. Inkpaduta 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's a great article actually. I found many interesting statements, and they were well reffed. Additionally the references did generally seem to support the statements. I can't understand why one would want to delete it. Maury 23:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Fill is usually very responsive to any reasonable problems left to work out.GetAgrippa 23:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, as per above. The article could possibly use a rewrite/refocusing (it's a bit ADHD in its current form), but there's a lot of useful information, and contrary to the original request, I can't really see it as a pro-creation piece. (warning: pretty much soapboxing from here on out - feel free to skim :-D ) Maybe there're editwars going on that I'm not privy to, but if anything, the only bias I could find would be an "Americans are stupid lol, Scandanavia is so much more enlightened AMERIKKA=OWNED" bias - which is a theory that I, as an American who believes in the merits of the scientific process, have to admit seems to be supported by the Gallup numbers. Then again, maybe it's like what they say about finding smart jurors - "anybody who's smart will get out of jury duty" (or "anybody with an opinion worth sharing will have an unlisted telephone number"]. As far as the claim that sheer numbers neither prove nor disprove anything, again, I don't think the article is trying to prove anything one way or the other. (to wander even further off-topic for a minute: Saying that more than 98% of accredited scientists in relevant fields believe in evolution is a bit more substantial than the original request makes it out to be. People who respond to Gallup polls are also the sorts to loan Nigerian princes tens of thousands of dollars, so hey.) Anyway -- the article serves a clear purpose by being a handy compilation of primary and secondary sources, serving as a branching point for an important and noteworthy academic topic, which I believe is what Wikipedia is all about. Certainly better than something like this. --Action Jackson IV 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible KEEP As might be imagined, I dispute in the strongest possible terms what I feel is an incredible misrepresentation by ScienceApologist. I have plenty to say about this, but for now, I will say I disagree with it completely. I am open to a name change, but I would only support one that is within reason or certain bounds. --Filll 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The nomination asserts that "this has proven to be an impossible task" without specifying exactly what's wrong with the article in this respect. Much of the nomination consists of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. For the rest it's just an ex cathedra WP:OR assertion in need of a clarification. (Somewhat tongue-in-cheek: I'm awaiting SA's AfD for the Controversy article.) I also have a positive argument: this article reports on the acceptance of evolution amongst lay people whereas the Controversy article deals with acceptance amongst scientists vs. rejection amongst lay people (creationists...). As such this new article Fillls a very real niche that was empty until this article was started. Obviously its scientific counterpart, the Evolution article, has been there since time immemorial. (Some of the information relating to acceptance among the scientific community could be deleted from the article since it duplicates information also available in the Controversy article.) AvB &divide;  talk  23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but Rename - It should be renamed to supporters of evolution or something else since the article is more about the people and organizations who support evolution rather than the "levels" of support for evolution. It's a very informative article other and am surprised it is proposed for deletion. Pbarnes 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "impossible task" referred to by the nominator is a spurious argument, based on the nominator's own recent edit-war (conducted anonymously) in which he/she seems to have tried to make the article unmanageable by constant reversion of one point. I am open to suggestions for renaming, but I see nothing much wrong with the present name. Snalwibma 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A disagreement over nomenclature is not sufficient to cause deletion. Articles with far less ideal names remain valuable Wikipedia articles. And I really think you're being very rude to the editors who made it, who are in no way creationists, and thus surely can't be making a Creationist POV fork. Adam Cuerden talk 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Name can be rethought later--the article can be moved either by consensus, or at WP:RM. I think it possible that a better wording might be found by consensus among the editors without WP:PM. (It will take a little consideration for finding the best name. Perhaps this AfD will prove useful in getting the cleanup accomplished, though it will take a while and should go by slow stages--not by a vote here. DGG 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator's criticisms would be dead-on if this article were about "evolution" or the "factuality of evolution".  However, it is not!
 * 1) There does indeed exist "a way to gauge the “level of support” for the scientific concept of evolution". The article discusses support for the theory, and (unlike the nom) does not conflate this with the accuracy of the theory.  The article is not POV as it presents both sides of the argument and always with references.
 * 2) The nominator notes WP:SCI and write "Polls, open letters, and opinion pieces are not how this is done for scientific subjects." Yes, but this article is not about the scientific subject of the theory of evolution.  It's about perceptions regarding the theory.  -- Black Falcon 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This does not sound like a creationist fork. In fact, I think the POV is fair & represents the scientific viewpoint in proportion to the consensus there, and similarly with the other sections. Others seem to see this also--some of the strongest pro-evolutionists in WP are one one side of this AfD, and some on the other. There is a great deal of editing to be done. some sections, like the one of the Catholic Church, are probably better merged elsewhere. Some on the general scientific literacy of the american public, should be articles of their own. Deleting the article is not the way to go about these changes. Once these are done, there is a great deal of editing in detail. But this is in my opinion at least perhaps the best and the fairest of all the articles on the controversy.
 * Keep yes, the title sucks, but we've been down that road before. The article is quite well-written and detailed; though I've tried on several occasions to understand SA's objection to it, the reasoning seems entirely specious, and I've been consistently confused about his motivations. Opabinia regalis 02:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE Portillo 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No surprise that this and the prevous AfD on this article garnered considerable support from creationists.--Filll 03:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, I'm not a creationist, but I recommended keeping the article as a good article about the popular media debate between creationists and the bulk of biologists. So it's not just creationists that are recommending keeping it. Dugwiki 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment -Strong delete for what reason? AFD is not a poll, it is a discussion. ◄ Zahakiel ►  03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article needs work, but it should not be deleted:

--Jorfer 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If you have been reading the comments of the editors on the talk page then the idea that this is a creationist POV fork is ridiculous as the main editors are all pro-evolution (Fill, Silence, and Orangemarlin). This topic is relevant and important, particularly in the realms of politics and media. As sad as it is, since the government runs the public school system, politics is largely involved in education (which I feel should be eradicated with a voucher system, but that is another subject) and politics is obviously affected by public perception. All you have to do is look to San Francisco and the requirement of homosexual history to see this. It is even arguable that the public perception affects the teaching of evolution even more than scientific evidence does. Also, if I am not mistaken, one tactic that is used at almost every one of the "vs. evolution" trials is to bring in a stack of papers that support evolution and drop them on the objectors stand which is exactly what this article addresses. It is also very important in the media as the they use public opinion polls in their reporting, make decisions on what views to air, and decide how much time to give them and how to air opinions based on the popularity of the view. Regardless of how much time this issue deserves, it is often covered heavily by the media and thus is not just a creationist fork.
 * 2) Fill has been more then willing in cleaning up the article when suggestions were made. I am a creationist and most of my complaints were addressed though I still feel that Examining the level of public support section needs to attempt to provide credibility for the general public or the section should be erased entirely to be NPOV, but this is a simple problem to deal with.
 * 3) As for the title, it could probably use a better title, but the content is much more important, and I find it ridiculous that we keep wasting time on the title when we could be moving on to more important issues.
 * 4) The other editors have already stated that this is not a scientific article but a social one.
 * Keep but Rename. The issue appears to be the idea that the article is about popular support and polls. So rename it. WAS 4.250 05:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename I suggest Level of popular support for evolution because: i) This partly addresses the concern that some sophist try to use the article to twist the poll results into a condemnation of the theory of evolution.  ii) As User:Silence said above, that is the main thing the article is about, iii) It is a small change to the title.  Cardamon 10:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The main reason this change hasn't already been implemented is that Filll felt (and I agreed) that using "popular" here would suggest that the article is only concerned with the opinion of the masses, not with the opinion of scientists, etc., when in reality it discusses the level of support for evolution among all sorts of different groups of people. So "popular" in this sense would simply mean "by people", not "by laypeople". However, I'm coming around to thinking that this would not be a terrible change, and could perhaps be justified either by being careful to make sure that we're clear about which sense of "popular" we're using, or by simply refocusing the scope of this article and indeed focusing it primarily on laypeople's views of evolution, while discussing scientists' views only as a (lengthy) sidenote. However, considering that the current title (particularly with the dab notice at the top of the page) is about 99% non-ambiguous, I am still reluctant to change it largely to satisfy the nitpicking of one persistent editor (ScienceApologist). And I still worry that the new title would just replace one set of problems with a new, possibly worse set of problems (i.e., people might start trying to remove the scientific perspective from the article altogether). So at this point, I'm still wary about making such a rename, though it's certainly something to consider. -Silence 13:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the name is putatively a problem, I will note that this has been addressed repeatedly without much satisfactory result or resolution on the talk page of the article. I compiled a long list of potential new names, and attempted to gauge community opinion on the matter, but this did not produce a satisfactory conclusion. I suspect that if the name was changed, this would not stop ScienceApologist's unilateral edits and what seems to be emerging as some sort of personal vendetta. ScienceApologist has continued to agitate against the article's theme and dispute the wording of various sections, both while logged in and as various anons. Apellative inconsistency and incompatibility seems to constitute only a small part of his concerns. Most of his problem appears to be that a balanced NPOV article in this area is not desirable since it might give some succor and comfort to creationists, a complaint that is not addressable in WP, and has nothing to do with the name. Changing the name would not quell the rancor or polemical exchanges I fear. For example, a suggestion to  replace the word "support" with the word "acceptance" or the word "approval", either of which might be potentially more descriptive and less open to misinterpretation, did not receive his affirmation. Another prominent area of apparent dissension in this altercation is the claim that this article tries to suggest that science is decided by opinion polls. However, I dispute this assertion vigorously, which is addressed prominently (but not exclusively) in the article itself, in Level_of_support_for_evolution. and in other places in the text. This eristic contretemps is not solely over the name, but over the existence of the article itself, and even the role of WP in documenting the controversy.--Filll 16:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that General and Scientific Perceptions of Evolution would be a good choice then.--Jorfer 16:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "General" is too vague here; pairing "General" with "Scientific" would confuse most readers because they would assume that "general" normally encompasses "scientific". "Perceptions" also isn't the best word, because it is vague (and thus has less informational value than "level of support") and arguably infers too much about the page's contents (i.e., the fact that someone says something about evolution doesn't mean that that's his "perception" of evolution; this seems to be conflating "perception" with "point of view" or "opinion", when normally opinions are subjective inferences from perceptions, not perceptions themselves). It's also pretty long, and (on a grammatical/style note) shouldn't be capitalized. -Silence 16:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A similar name that is also overly long but more descriptive is Popular and scientific acceptance of evolution.--Filll 16:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep While I certainly agree the title presents a problem (more one of uncertainty regarding the topic than POV), the content is extremely clear, well-defined, and well-referenced. It's a fallacy of the original nomination that this article has no value because popular opinion has no direct influence on the sciences.  While that may be so, the effects of the evolution debate have extremely strong encyclopedic value to sociology, political science, and demographics.  The effect on a scientific debate upon public perception, which in turn affects politics and education, is clearly of historical and socio-political value to an excyclopedia.  This is a good article by all wikipedia criteria, keep it. -Markeer 14:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongest Keep without reservation While I am in agreement with some of those comments about the title, this article needs to be kept. My only reason for keeping the article is that it is an excellent resource for understanding the debate between evolution and, well, the other side. Orangemarlin 18:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * one more point. As for this article being an "undercover creationist POV fork", all I can say is WTF?  I helped Filll with some minor little points when he was developing this article, and neither he nor I could be described as creationists under any condition.  I can't believe that I read such an odd accusation.  Orangemarlin 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete ScienceApologist is right Tuohirulla puhu 18:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep – this is a useful resource that can be linked from all the articles SA suggests, rather than trying to maintain the same information repeated in several article. The concern about this somehow conveying the mistaken idea that science is by majority opinion can usefully be addressed by a clear statement at the outset of the science section. Regarding the title, I suggest Public opinion on evolution as more clearly neutral, and as "public opinion" and "opinion polls" can refer to opinion amongst particular groups rather than the public at large. The sections could then be rephrased as "opinion on evolution" rather than acceptance or support. Alternatives might be Levels of opinion on evolution or Extent of opinions on evolution. Either way, these are problems that can be fixed and not a good reason to discard this resource. ... dave souza, talk 22:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a creationist POV fork.  I may be persuaded to rename the article, as some of these subsequent arguments have merit, but the allegations that this is an "undercover creationist POV fork" is not well reasoned (and not backed by the facts that I know).  StudyAndBeWise 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I concur with dave souza when he writes "The concern about this somehow conveying the mistaken idea that science is by majority opinion can usefully be addressed by a clear statement at the outset of the science section."--note that this is a vote... StudyAndBeWise 01:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hopeless mish-mash of opinion polls. Support for evolution by whom? This is not a coherent topic for an encyclopedia. This is a POV fork where the POV seems to be "anyone who is not actually involved in the field." KillerChihuahua?!? 23:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would semi agree that everyone who is not an evolutionary biologist, and anyone with less than a PhD has no right whatsoever to voice an opinion in this matter. Not other scientists. Not politicians. Not engineers. Not molecular biologists. Not preachers. No one in the general public. Not creationists. Not teachers. Not courts. Not lawyers. No one except for paleontologists and evolutionary biologists. If I was the king of the world, I would impose that rule. Except that is not reality. And this article describes our current messy reality.--Filll 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it? Creation-evolution controversy describes our current messy reality. This article is a POV fork of indeterminate focus and no encyclopedic value. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per ScienceApologist. Evolution polls was deleted, so why shouldn't this one be? JPotter 00:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Except this is nothing like the stub called Evolution polls.--Filll 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: This page has irrecoverable POV issues. It says that a majority of people believe in creationism, and then it's ended with "It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world." There's no way to get any more POV than that. I'm also not sure why it's relevant to Wikipedia; it just seems to be a bunch of opinion polls, much of which have nothing to do with the subject (UFOs?).  . V .  [Talk 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you even READ the article? And no it does not say that most people believe in creationism. That is pure nonsense. --Filll 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have been more specific. Parts of it do (near the end). Regardless, I don't really see the purpose of this article.  . V .  [Talk 18:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it is true that some segments of some communities subscribe to creationism, but not to the extent that many claim. And this article documents exactly to what extent different groups subscribe to creationism. And if you do not understand why it is important, then you have been living under a rock since millions of dollars are being thrown at this issue and many court cases have concerned it and laws in 40 states are being considered, and in many other countries as well. This just reports on the situation. And one aspect of the dispute.--Filll 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but it smacks of recentism. I fail to see why a particular snapshot of public opinion as it stands today would be at all useful for an encyclopedia. It would be like having an article about how many people currently like cars better than trucks. I understand creationism v. evolution is a large issue, but this article seems superfluous.  . V .  [Talk 23:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that this evolution/creationism debate has been going on for at least a couple of decades, I don't think it's reasonable to classify the topic under "recentism". Dugwiki 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe this editor has not actually read the article, since it has signed statements that date from 1966, and polls that date back for a couple of decades, and clear evidence in the "Trends" section that my intention is to find more historical material. My impression from looking at the literature is that creationism belief levels in the US have always been high, and that the recent excitement is not really anything new at all. It also appears that the level of acceptance of evolution among scientists appears to be increasing, not decreasing. This person does not seem to have even read the article.--Filll 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did indeed read the article. Even though there are a few sources which date back to the 60's, that does not seem enough to merit being in an encyclopedia. The question we need to ask is, "Is this information important?" I don't see how this article can meet that standard. The majority of references are within the past 10 years. What is the value of this article?  . V .  [Talk 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The topic of this article is sufficiently of interest that at least 3 mainstream books have been published on this, as noted in the article. These sorts of discussions are the basis of laws or laws under consideration in at least 40 US states currently. These sorts of discussions have been part of more than 10 court cases in federal courts, including the US Supreme Court. The level of acceptance of the theory is also used by both sides in the controversy, and considerable effort has been expended by various elements to try to determine what the level of acceptance is by different groups. It is not an article about the science of evolution directly; it is an article about the controversy, and charting its progress. --Filll 18:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- I commented early on in this AfD, and I've been reading the comments since.  I've read the article, and I do not see how any objective reader can conceive that the article is pro-creationism.  Now, it is true that (as I mentioned up above) some POV statements need to be removed.  The last "delete" vote had a point regarding the ending sentence... I don't think it was necessary, and certainly added nothing of value to the objective data.  Nevertheless, that is a problem for cleanup, not scrapping the entire entry.  The votes for delete have largely consisted of "I don't like it" comments (if any justification is included at all), and one scorched earth statement.  I don't know about the (apparently intricate) edit wars that have attended this and similar articles, but coming into the arena fresh I don't see any good reason provided for deleting this one, and lots of valid data that justifies its retention. And further, reporting on other people's POV from verifiable sources is not, itself, POV; especially if the topic itself is about viewpoints.  ◄ Zahakiel ►  17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename. What does "support" mean in this case?  "I support evolution and think we should have more of it"?  "I oppose evolution and want it to stop"?  Clearly the article is about belief.  Wouldn't that be a better word.   semper fictilis 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh. You are right!  I don't think anyone had noticed that until now.  However, I think instead of changing the word "support", we should add "the theory of" before evolution: Level of support for the theory of evolution.  The article measures support for the theory of evolution, not the concept of evolution itself.  "Level of belief" just sounds somehow ... strange to me.  Then again, maybe it's just me. -- Black Falcon 23:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will point out that the renaming of this article has been the subject of an immense amount of discussion. Part of the difficulty is that it has been difficult to get any kind of consensus about renaming. The problem with the word "belief" is that it has too many religious connotations. The acceptance by the scientific community of the theory of evolution to explain the fact of evolution is just what would be expected in any scientific activity. To call this a "belief" would draw parallels with creationism, the fear of which is driving the efforts to have this article deleted. So actually, to call it a "belief" would invite even more attacks of the sort we are witnessing on this page. One could of course include the word theory, but the distinction between the theory of evolution and the process of evolution is addressed in evolution and in objections to evolution and is also addressed in evolution as theory and fact. I will point out that some creationists accept the process of evolution, and some deny that it occurs. Some even accept the theory of evolution, at least in part, to explain the process of evolution. There are many many types of creationist with many different shades of acceptance of evolution the process, and evolution the theory. And none of them agree with each other, by and large. To get into these fine distinctions in this article would require much more information than is currently available, and would require a much longer article.--Filll 01:00, 21 February 2007 (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.