Wikipedia:Requests for comment/evolution

I created two articles about evolution today, and both were blanked via "redirect".

One tried to re-open the evolution controversy, a debate which is cast by evolutionists as already having been won. The other tries to clarify the various definitions of evolution used in the debate.

I reverted the blanking of each article exactly three times, using the marks 1RR, 2RR and 3RR so I wouldn't lose track. Each time I looked in vain for any sort of reason for the blanking. In all 6 instances, there was either (1) no attempt to give a reason, (2) personal attacks, or (3) vague complaints about original research, "POV" writing, and the like.

I tried on the talk pages to follow up these complaints, but the responses were utterly unsatisfactory. Uncle Ed 22:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Creation-evolution controversy already exists; if you have additional information it should be placed in that article. Definitions of evolution belong in evolution; in my opinion, evolution is already defined well enough for my liking. If you disagree, please bring it up on the talk page. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this contructive comment. Apparently we had been talking at cross purposes heretofore. I am not interested ony how scientists define evolution but also how the lay public (and theologians) define evolution.

There has been some confusion arising over various definitions of biological evolution, particular over the distinction between:
 * 1) belief in the idea that life emerged originally and/or that new forms of life have arisen purely as a result of natural forces (definition #1); and,
 * 2) belief in the idea that over the ages new forms of life have indeed arisen, whatever the cause may be (definition #2)

For most scientists (95%) and virtually all biologists (99.8%), #1 and #2 are not different. It would be like trying te distinguish between (a) he survived alone on the island for 3 years and (b) he survived alone on the island for 3 years, because he was able to obtain water and food. It's so obvious to everyone that people need water and food to survive that the distinction seems silly (at best).

But for the other side in the evolution controversy, the side which does not accept the sovereignty of science, non-physical or "supernatural" forces are a viable possibility. In fact, according to a 2001 evolution poll, 45% of Americans believe supernatural forces alone were responsible for the emergence of life.

The public policy question which hinges on how many people believe in evolution is how they want the origins question to be addressed in science classes. If we delete from Wikipedia any mention of the FACT that roughly half deny evolution altogether and around a third deny the "natural forces alone" aspect of it, we will do our readers a disservice. Uncle Ed 17:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I admit that I am not entirely sure what you would like to see done here. I agree that if a number of people from a country reject certain aspects of science, that deserves a mention, but wouldn't the appropriate place be Evolution poll or Creation-evolution controversy, and isn't it already mentioned there? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If they are science classes, "how many people believe in evolution" is not relevant. The purpose of a class in science, much like the purpose of an encyclopedia, is to reduce ignorance by spreading human knowledge, not to make people more ignorant by obfuscating the knowledge we do have. Science is, after all, nothing more or less than the only proven process we have for learning about our environment. We examine evidence, form a theory, test that theory, and then keep going through the cycle as long as new facts can be gathered. That process is "science": that is how humanity learns. That some humans haven't quite grasped this basic principle is worth a mention (much in the way that an epidemic of cholera is worth a mention), but the appropriate place for that would be the existing Creation-evolution controversy article, or perhaps the article on Public_education. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR limit
Despite my adding new information, as demanded, other Wikipedians continued to blank the articles.

I added information about the Catholic Church's position on evolution, in light of the two main definitions of biological evolution as used in the contemporary debate over evolution, but again the article was blanked. Uncle Ed 00:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Um?
You actually made an RFC for evolution? I suppose when evolution doesn't comment, it means you've won... What I really want to know is this.. what mentally ill person actually gave you admin rights here??
 * Anonymous user, please treat other editors with civility and respect. We can disagree with each other but let's do it courteously. These sorts of personal attacks don't help either side gain credibility. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently RFC is being confused with "action against". I'm not against anything or anyone. I want to hear the editing community's comments *on* our evolution articles. "On" as in "about" or "regarding". This is not the opening salvo in an attack or the first step in the path toward arbitration. The arbcom is not for settling subject matter disputes. Uncle Ed 15:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm 2
Umm, okay what's wrong with discussing this at talk:evolution or the page at talk:evolution/creationism where all creationist ideas are sent?

I think Ed is using up a lot of his good faith in this latest anti-science campaign. If this was an anon or a newbie he'd have been ignored ages ago. Dunc|&#9786; 14:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not anti-science at all. Why are you calling this an "anti-science campaign"? Uncle Ed 14:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Whilst I believe that you are trying to make articles NPOV (good), your NPOV needle has gone very skew-wiff (v. bad). You have been somewhat duped by creationist pseudoscience and lies and you clearly know little about evolutionary biology.  In effect therefore it is an anti-science campaign because it is trying to push pseudoscience into science articles where it does not belong.  I have enough respect for you to know that you mean well, even if you are fed up with me at the moment for getting rid of your "evolution controversy" fork. However, you should have more respect for the biologists around here who have contributed so much and have to put up with this nonsense from an army of cranky anonymous vandals, let alone a bureaucrat. Dunc|&#9786; 14:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not a bureaucrat any more: I resigned last month. I'm not fed up with you; actually, I realized that the matter needs a project, not a one-man show; I value your comments, or (duh!) I wouldn't keep asking for them.


 * I would oppose any attempt to "push pseudoscience into science articles" so please follow along and keep me honest.


 * I would like to lift the discussion out of the hell of anonymous vandalism. I see from the logs that you've done 30 blocks since April 26th; I guess it can became wearisome. Uncle Ed 15:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, We can work on those terms. The idea is to explain quite complex topics to a layperson so the views of a layperson, especially a slightly sceptical one, are definitely worth considering.  The creationst movement uses obfuscation and strawmen arguments as a debating tactic.  Yet their views must be given a little airtime to be NPOV, but not disproportional. It's often so incoherent that it's difficult to summarise in an effective way. Dunc|&#9786; 16:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I am adamantly opposed to letting Creationists get away with using obfuscation and strawman arguments. To me that's just as bad as letting a pastor "skim" the contributions basket to pay for his trips to a massage parlor (grrr!).

I frankly concede my sympathy for the doctrine of creation, but the encyclopedia should present advocacy for this idea properly. If creationists reject evolution because it contradicts their doctrine, that's one thing. If say that evolution is unscientific, that's another claim altogether. Uncle Ed 17:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you present the teleological argument in context of theology, that's fine. Try to present the same argument as science and you start conroversilaly treading on scientists' toes (and it gets even worse if it is based on the rather unchristian practice of lying).  This is what S.J. Gould called non-overlapping Magisteria, and majority of people follow this sort of line of thought.  Unfortunately fundamentalists reject science as a method of discerning truth about the world and replace it with something that is neither good science nor good theology.


 * I think NPOV works slightly differently on science articles and art/social science articles. Generally scientific consensus is presented as unattributed fact whereas social ideas have to put qualifiers on them.  I think this is partially caused by how scientist are trained to think against how artists are trained to think.  Conflict comes when one side thinks their way is best for the other's area. Dunc|&#9786; 19:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The qualifiers should be there even on scientific articles. I.e., "it is accepted that the whale evolved from..." instead of just "the whale evolved from..." This is not my creationist POV (I'm as hardcore an evolutionist as you can get), but I just think NPOV demands this clarification. Of course, we don't need to mention creationism in every article on biology. N (t/c) 20:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * But you don't get that in an article on gravitational physics, you shouldn't get it in evolutionary biology just because one happens to offend a tiny religious minority. Attributing can make a sentence waffly. It's unnecessary since an intelligent reader ought to know a little at least about how scientific facts are discerned.  There is a tendency already towards NPOV paranoia around here that means that some beautiful prose gets hacked around. Dunc|&#9786; 21:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no significant opposition to prevalant theories of gravity, except maybe for a few obscure scientific hypotheses, which should be mentioned where appropriate. On the other hand, the group opposed to evolution is not a "tiny minority". And in any case, even if the evidence is strongly in favor of "the whale evolved from X", it is not proven and so we can't say it as fact, can we? No more than we could say "general relativity is true"; we instead say something like "general relativity is currently accepted as the best theory of gravity". I'm with Ed on this one. N (t/c) 02:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Dunc, I'm not presenting or advancing any arguments. I am trying to get in between the two sides and explain to each what the other is saying, while the "general reader" looks on. That is, I'm trying to make articles for laymen who are neither (1) scientists nor (2) theologians.

I don't know what teleological means, but I do know what experiments and testing are. In my field of software engineering, we use hypotheses all the time: e.g., "I think this bug is caused by X. Remove X, but the bug is still there? Well, you've got some more debugging to do."

Pretending that something is so (or that it has even been proven) when it has not is equally outrageous to both sides in the debate. I'm going to cry foul, whether it's creation science dressing up their dogma for Halloween ("My church's theology is really a hypotheses!") or evolution advocates asserting that they've proved beyond any possible doubt that material forces alone are sufficient to account for all new forms of life that have arisen since pre-Cambrian times.

But I'm going to do this without taking sides. I'm simply going to point out that:
 * Side A claims natural forces alone are sufficient
 * Side B says some gaps could only be bridged by an intelligent designer
 * Side C says stop fooling around, the Bible says God created life in 6 days and that ought to settle it

I have no plans whatsoever to referee this battle and keep score, declaring one side or another the winner. I just want each article to attribute all POV to the side that advocates it.

The idea that "scientific consensus is presented as unattributed fact" is perhaps a stumbling block here. Is it the policy of Wikipedia to present whatever enough scientisis say is so as so obviously true that it needs no attribution? Uncle Ed 22:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry; I don't understand, Ed. There would seem to be plenty of references in Evolution providing evidence and sources for the statements made in the article. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)