Talk:Level of support for evolution

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mann jess (talk | contribs) at 00:41, 5 September 2011 (Hat 2 sections). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:41, 5 September 2011 by Mann jess (talk | contribs) (Hat 2 sections)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Level of support for evolution was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 21, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Evolutionary biology Unassessed

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Evolution. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of evolution or argue for or against evolution please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Archives

1 2 3

Error in chart

In the second chart in the section on public support in the United States, the two final columns have identical headings. But the data are different. Is this an error? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like a mistake. In my defense, I did not add that table. I have been slowly rewriting the entire article, so most of what you currently see will be replaced when I get finished. I just have not been as careful in keeping track of the changes others make I guess for that reason.--Filll (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's two separate polls -- the trouble is that the table makes no attempt to distinguish between them -- first ('Creationist') & last columns are from one poll, middle two are from another. Hrafn_Stalk 02:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should be distinguished in some way, especially given the wide disparity between the last to columns on what % of Republicans believe in evolution. Maybe it should be divided into two charts, or just mentioned in the texts that different polls have shown conflicting data. Or maybe the older poll should be deleted. I don't know. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Physics of Time Asymmetry

Irrelevant discussion of time asymmetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should we move the discussion here? Doug Youvan (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC) No! Unless of course you can cite WP:RSs that state that a significant number (per WP:DUE) of scientists base their support (or lack thereof) of evolution on the "Physics of Time Asymmetry". Otherwise, this discussion is completely off-topic and will be removed. Hrafn_Stalk 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I was planning to give quotes from notable scientists who believe the Boltzmann H-theorem is true, thus providing (again, quoted) a forward time period for biological evolution to have occured.Doug Youvan (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Do they base their support for evolution solely or substantially on that point? (If not, it's irrelevant.) Are they speaking on behalf of a significant proportion of scientists on this point? (If not, to mention them would violate WP:UNDUE.) This article is on the "level of support for evolution" -- not 'all things that even remotely underlie evolution' -- if it were it'd need a a section on Quantum Mechanics and who knows what else. Hrafn_Stalk 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Could you restate your last comment in the positive, so I can restrict my search to what is acceptable for this article? Doug Youvan (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Nothing relating to the "physics of time asymmetry" will ever be relevant to this artice. This article is about the degree of acceptance of evolution. It is not, and never will be, about the physics of time asymmetry. Is this sufficiently clear now? --Robert Stevens (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC) It should be blindingly obvious: examples that are "speaking on behalf of a significant proportion of scientists" where they "base their support for evolution solely or substantially on ". But like Robert says, this is irrelevant, so you will not be able to find sources making this leap. Hrafn_Stalk 07:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC) OK, so that doesn't work. Is there anything else I can research for you as a biophysicist / creationist? I will gladly argue either for or against Creation and Evolution. The molecular mechanism of Darwinian Evolution is something that interests me. Also, Tom Jukes was my first Ph.D. mentor at Berkeley, and I can dig up his publications that were used to combat Creationists in the California Public Schools, ca. 40 years ago. He had a monthly line into Nature. Doug Youvan (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant discussion of time asymmetry

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Should we move the discussion here? Doug Youvan (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No! Unless of course you can cite WP:RSs that state that a significant number (per WP:DUE) of scientists base their support (or lack thereof) of evolution on the "Physics of Time Asymmetry". Otherwise, this discussion is completely off-topic and will be removed. Hrafn_Stalk 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to give quotes from notable scientists who believe the Boltzmann H-theorem is true, thus providing (again, quoted) a forward time period for biological evolution to have occured.Doug Youvan (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do they base their support for evolution solely or substantially on that point? (If not, it's irrelevant.) Are they speaking on behalf of a significant proportion of scientists on this point? (If not, to mention them would violate WP:UNDUE.) This article is on the "level of support for evolution" -- not 'all things that even remotely underlie evolution' -- if it were it'd need a a section on Quantum Mechanics and who knows what else. Hrafn_Stalk 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you restate your last comment in the positive, so I can restrict my search to what is acceptable for this article? Doug Youvan (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing relating to the "physics of time asymmetry" will ever be relevant to this artice. This article is about the degree of acceptance of evolution. It is not, and never will be, about the physics of time asymmetry. Is this sufficiently clear now? --Robert Stevens (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be blindingly obvious: examples that are "speaking on behalf of a significant proportion of scientists" where they "base their support for evolution solely or substantially on ". But like Robert says, this is irrelevant, so you will not be able to find sources making this leap. Hrafn_Stalk 07:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so that doesn't work. Is there anything else I can research for you as a biophysicist / creationist? I will gladly argue either for or against Creation and Evolution. The molecular mechanism of Darwinian Evolution is something that interests me. Also, Tom Jukes was my first Ph.D. mentor at Berkeley, and I can dig up his publications that were used to combat Creationists in the California Public Schools, ca. 40 years ago. He had a monthly line into Nature. Doug Youvan (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum and Appeal to authority

I've removed this section, as it seems to be more of an unnecessary disclaimer than anything else. That is to say, the purpose of the article is to cover the levels of support for evolution from various groups. Not only is the fact that a majority view is not the same as proof so obvious it goes without saying, but I hardly see how the purpose of an encyclopedic article can shift from reporting factual information to cautioning readers as to what sort of judgements they should make based on the provided information. As I see it, if the article is to be truly objective, then it should do nothing to intentionally guide the reader's thought processes. In addition, it seemed that the Appeal to Authority bit kind of encouraged misconception regarding scientific consensus. But still, regardless, of what it encourages, the point is that it shouldn't encourage anything. So I removed the section, as I said. Calgary (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to know if the rest of the 480,000 were even asked their opinion, or if it was just assumed that they supported evolution. Maybe they supported neither evolution or creationism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the topic heading of this article; specifically, changing it.

I feel the title of this article does not really reflect its contents; this article is really about the level of popular support for evolution/creationism, not really about the level of support for evolution per se. The level of support for evolution, objectively speaking, consists of hundreds of thousands of scientific publications, the contents of which are largely dealt with in several other WP articles such as evidence for evolution and other articles in the evolutionary biology series.

This article, i believe, is fundamentally about the public's perception of evolution/creationism, and should be (re-)named as such. To this end, I would propose renaming the article to "Level of popular support for evolution", which serves to disambiguate the intent of this article from evidence for evolution, and more accurately reflects the article's content and intent. Mjharrison (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree -- both in the lead and in the article body the article discusses the level of support for evolution among scientists as well as among the general public. "Popular" does not cover this aspect. The "hundreds of thousands of scientific publications" ambiguity is already covered by a dab-tag at the top. Hrafn_Stalk 14:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this article is strictly considering the personal beliefs or opinions of evolution as distinct from evidence for/against, i'd contend this is still "popular support". Scientists are still a subset of the population and may hold personal convictions that stem from faith that do or do not agree with their acceptance of the extant evidence for evolution. The current article conflates belief with acceptance, which doesn't seem right to me. How about prising the current article into 2 separate articles - "level of scientific acceptance of evolution as fact" and "level of popular support of evolution"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjharrison (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if I were to accept your characterisation that these are the "personal beliefs" (as opposed to the 'professional opinions') of the scientists discussed, "personal" is not equivalent to "popular". Further, "popular" has a strong connotation of 'lowest common denominator' mass culture, which is quite antithetical to the articles' coverage of the views of scientists (whether personal or professional). I think it is the contrast of the views of the masses versus the scientifically literate that provides this article with any point -- if split into two articles, it would simply be regurgitating the polling statistics for the respective groups (and wikipedia is WP:NOT simply a repository for polling data). 17:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree wtih Mjharrison. This article really puts lots of different things together to make something new. "Support for evolution" is not even defined. Why does a scientific fact need support anyway? Northwestgnome (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with article

It's an interesting article. However It really reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article to me. BTW I fully support evolution. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this example? Motorcycle helmet laws is also a controversial issue in the USA. What if we took a survey of brain trama experts, then one of professional motorcycle racers, then one of the general public and put all three together to create an article: Level of support for motorcycle helmet laws? Northwestgnome (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to start an article on Level of support for X provided the topic is notable. That is, there would need to be a significant number of reliable sources indicating that Level of support for X is something that is widely discussed. The topic Level of support for evolution is notable. --Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the article, and I learned some things reading it. My problem with it is that it puts together various different things to create something new -- like a magazine article, say in the New Yorker, would. Not like an encyclopedia article. I see that it has been AfDed twice so I won't nominate it again. I also think "Level of support for motorcycle helmet laws" is just as notable. Among people I know this comes up as a topic of conversation more often then "Level of support for evolution." :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Level of support among Evangelical theogians

This report finds that 46% of Evangelical theologians (i.e. those from the denomination generally considered most vocal in its opposition to evolution) "can accept the theory of theistic evolution." Would there be any problem with including this in the article? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 09:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If the methodology of the polling is sound, large enough sample, et al. then I don't see why not. I'm not surprised by the number, but I'm sure many antievolutionists would disagree with the (in their minds) high number. Auntie E. 18:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The extent of the claimed consensus

The references do not give any indication as to the extent of the claimed consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Andrew Richards (talk • contribs) 23:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

, found here, reads:
Dr. Miller, a widely-recognized biology professor at Brown University who has written university-level and highschool biology textbooks used prominently throughout the nation, provided unrebutted testimony that evolution, including common descent and natural selection, is “overwhelmingly accepted” by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees.
, found here, states: "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution"

Did you actually read the sources? — Scientizzle 23:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Contents of amicus curiae - citation needed?

Hey there! Following these two edits to the last sentence of the paragraph on the 1986 amicus curiae brief, I believe that the current wording should be changed. In the sentence, "The amicus curiae brief also clearly described why evolution was science, not religion, and why creationism is not science," the phrase "clearly described" seems to be a subjective judgement on the brief's contents. Can we change it to something like, "The amicus curiae brief also asserted that evolution was science, not religion, and that creationism is not science"? Other possible words choices: claimed that, indicated that. --Cerebellum (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"The amicus curiae brief also states evolution was science, not religion, and that creationism is not science" would be more appropriate, as this can be considered expert opinion. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 08:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the claim of clarity comes from a secondary source describing the brief. I've reworded the text to reflect what each source explicitly states. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 09:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, that's much better! Also, as regards the question of creationist articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, I think we can do better than what we currently have. Right now we say that, "To date however, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine Pubmed." This is borderline original research (although it might fall under WP:OR#Routine calculations), and is basically unverifiable (for us to provide definitive evidence of absence, we would have to read every article in Pubmed - by just using as search engine, after all, we could be missing something). Would this talk.origins page or this book be considered reliable sources? We should also consider presenting the Creationist point of view as expressed here, although that invites a WP:UNDUE argument. What do you folks think? --Cerebellum (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm fairly sure I've seen that claim (or one very similar to it) made in a source -- but I have not got time, right at this very moment, to track it down. So I've tagged the claim & will attempt to track down a source for it later (assuming somebody hasn't beaten me to the punch). No, we should not include the DI's WP:SELFPUB, "unduly self-serving" claims (for example, at least one of the claimed 'peer reviewers' of Darwin's Black Box had never even read the book). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Project Steve synth

User:The ed17 took out the Project Steve numbers as WP:SYN and WP:OR and I believe it was the correct move, however it might be possible to find a source that actually makes a similar statement Nformation 09:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Add. "Reverted 3 edits: This study is outdated, has admitted problems, and is being used to advance a POV on education. Please discuss on talk."

User indef blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. Add. "Reverted 3 edits": One of the edit is not related to the given survey at all, but points out that the sentence "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory" has no sources and thus a template "citation needed" is legitimate (cf."All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." in wp:sources). The remark "No scientific issue is ever decided by such argumentum ad populum" is just explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable, but does not provide any prove of given alleged claim by creationists. My conclusion: There is no violation of any WP policy. 2. Add. "This study is outdated, has admitted problems, and is being used to advance a POV on education." contra-argument: The WP does not ban to present historical data (it provides more balanced NPOV if contradicting opinions are presented, contrary to your claim, and better historical insight) and problems are with every study depending which side interprets them (it is strange you have not specified what particular "problem" should breach any WP policy). The article on survey was published by SciDivNet, Science and Development Network, and the title of the article "Few in Brazil accept scientific view of human evolution" suggest that the site is not favouring creationism at all, thus the claim the author of article used this study "to advance a POV on education" is clearly irrational. Articles that you favour present lots of outdated data and you seem have no objections to it: just try to follow the citation by Neil Degrasse Tyson in the Relationship between religion and science article, section "Conflict". Thus, outdated stuff seems no problem whatsoever at WP, let alone reason to remove the content. My conclusion: There is no violation of any WP policy.--Stephfo (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC) 1) I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted. Feel free to put that back in if you want. 2) I was not saying the author of the article was advancing a POV. I was saying you were. Our article was not discussing education levels, nor was the source's focus on education levels, yet you chose to summarize it by saying that few educated people accepted evolution. That's inappropriate. The author of the article also admits to problems within the source study, and quotes outside criticism. That isn't the quality study we should be holding up as representative, unless properly contextualized, nor does it apparently deserve that much weight. Further, it's been superseded by a better, more recent study which we're already using. If you can show that the previous study has received notable coverage, we can contextualize the study, and properly detail its conclusions in a way relevant to our article, but as it stands, there are too many problems with your addition to include it. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I apologize for any inconvenience, but contrary to your claim, my CN tag was demonstrably part of stand-alone distinctive edit 448084723 with its own explanation: "There is no source of such claim by any creationist provided, but just general explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable". On the rest I will react later, Thanks for allowing for CN.--Stephfo (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Also, please learn heading levels and indenting. See how I've fixed it here? That's how it should be. Don't create new sections as subheadings of previous unrelated sections like this, or start a section already indented, etc. It makes your comments and intentions hard to parse. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Disruptive editing Placing a {{citation needed}} tag directly before an inline citation is WP:Disruptive editing. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I believe you have no problem to read the reason why the tag was placed, it is discussed in the section above, if being so, I can repeat: 1. Add. "Reverted 3 edits": One of the edit ... points out that the sentence "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory" has no sources and thus a template "citation needed" is legitimate (cf."All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." in wp:sources). The remark "No scientific issue is ever decided by such argumentum ad populum" is just explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable, but does not provide any prove of given alleged claim by creationists. My conclusion: There is no violation of any WP policy . You failed to address the basic reason for CN tag - the citation you are referring to does not prove anyhow the given claim: "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory". May you please explicitly quote what exactly you regard from "an inline citation" as evidence for given claim? General pondering over argumentum ad populum is hardly one and thus WP:Verifiability is clearly breached, because the "inline citation" does not provide any prove of given alleged claim by creationists. You failed to notice: "I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted. Feel free to put that back in if you want." in previous section. --Stephfo (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

User indef blocked.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. Add. "Reverted 3 edits": One of the edit is not related to the given survey at all, but points out that the sentence "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory" has no sources and thus a template "citation needed" is legitimate (cf."All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." in wp:sources). The remark "No scientific issue is ever decided by such argumentum ad populum" is just explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable, but does not provide any prove of given alleged claim by creationists. My conclusion: There is no violation of any WP policy. 2. Add. "This study is outdated, has admitted problems, and is being used to advance a POV on education." contra-argument: The WP does not ban to present historical data (it provides more balanced NPOV if contradicting opinions are presented, contrary to your claim, and better historical insight) and problems are with every study depending which side interprets them (it is strange you have not specified what particular "problem" should breach any WP policy). The article on survey was published by SciDivNet, Science and Development Network, and the title of the article "Few in Brazil accept scientific view of human evolution" suggest that the site is not favouring creationism at all, thus the claim the author of article used this study "to advance a POV on education" is clearly irrational. Articles that you favour present lots of outdated data and you seem have no objections to it: just try to follow the citation by Neil Degrasse Tyson in the Relationship between religion and science article, section "Conflict". Thus, outdated stuff seems no problem whatsoever at WP, let alone reason to remove the content. My conclusion: There is no violation of any WP policy.--Stephfo (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

1) I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted. Feel free to put that back in if you want. 2) I was not saying the author of the article was advancing a POV. I was saying you were. Our article was not discussing education levels, nor was the source's focus on education levels, yet you chose to summarize it by saying that few educated people accepted evolution. That's inappropriate. The author of the article also admits to problems within the source study, and quotes outside criticism. That isn't the quality study we should be holding up as representative, unless properly contextualized, nor does it apparently deserve that much weight. Further, it's been superseded by a better, more recent study which we're already using. If you can show that the previous study has received notable coverage, we can contextualize the study, and properly detail its conclusions in a way relevant to our article, but as it stands, there are too many problems with your addition to include it. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but contrary to your claim, my CN tag was demonstrably part of stand-alone distinctive edit 448084723 with its own explanation: "There is no source of such claim by any creationist provided, but just general explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable". On the rest I will react later, Thanks for allowing for CN.--Stephfo (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, please learn heading levels and indenting. See how I've fixed it here? That's how it should be. Don't create new sections as subheadings of previous unrelated sections like this, or start a section already indented, etc. It makes your comments and intentions hard to parse. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Placing a {{citation needed}} tag directly before an inline citation is WP:Disruptive editing. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 11:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have no problem to read the reason why the tag was placed, it is discussed in the section above, if being so, I can repeat:

1. Add. "Reverted 3 edits": One of the edit ... points out that the sentence "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory" has no sources and thus a template "citation needed" is legitimate (cf."All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." in wp:sources). The remark "No scientific issue is ever decided by such argumentum ad populum" is just explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable, but does not provide any prove of given alleged claim by creationists. My conclusion: There is no violation of any WP policy .

You failed to address the basic reason for CN tag - the citation you are referring to does not prove anyhow the given claim: "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory". May you please explicitly quote what exactly you regard from "an inline citation" as evidence for given claim? General pondering over argumentum ad populum is hardly one and thus WP:Verifiability is clearly breached, because the "inline citation" does not provide any prove of given alleged claim by creationists.

You failed to notice: "I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted. Feel free to put that back in if you want." in previous section. --Stephfo (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/essays/nathist/holywars

Categories: