|
:More to the point, those refutations of creationist poppycock come from reliable sources, and your [[WP:OR|original research]] trying to find fault with them is 100% irrelevant. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 13:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
::Regarding transitional fossils, the concept of [[Precambrian Rabbit|Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian]] is relevant. [[User:Kauri0.o|Kauri0.o]] ([[User talk:Kauri0.o|talk]]) 00:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
== Rampant Censorship problems ==
{{archive top| This discussion is going into [[wp:NOTFORUM]] territory so am just gonna close it.[[User:CycoMa1|CycoMa1]] ([[User talk:CycoMa1|talk]]) 01:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)}}
This article is supposed to be for objections to the theory of evolutions. The article establishes early on that the majority of these objections are raised by religious groups. Despite this, the article's edit history shows repeated examples of new objections being removed for citing a creationist-biased source for the objection. This defeats the entire purpose of the article. What's the point of an article on objections to evolution that can't cite objections to evolution? Furthermore, considering Charles Darwin was a member of the Plinian Society, a radical democratic group with an established agenda against the accepted consensus of the time{{sfn|Desmond|Moore|1991|pp=31–34}}, isn't it hypocritical to exclude articles from members of creationist organizations? --[[User:ATimeTravelingCaveman|ATimeTravelingCaveman]] ([[User talk:ATimeTravelingCaveman|talk]]) 15:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
:@[[User:ATimeTravelingCaveman|ATimeTravelingCaveman]] Says the editor who had never edited an article and whose first talk page edit was an anti-Catholic commment, correctly deleted. Anyway, as this article has barely been edited this year, please provide some links to specific examples. Without those no one really knows what you are complaining about. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
:Creationist sources are among the most unreliable sources there are. It would be crazy to allow them as sources except for their own opinions, and they typically word even their own opinions in a way that distorts the facts they reject. It is far better to use reliable sources talking about them. It's the same principle as that of the sewage plant.
:And you seem to misunderstand the purpose of the article. Its purpose is not to help creationists propagate bullshit. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 05:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
::Regarding radical democrats: The reason why we do not allow creationist sources is not that creationists disagree with the majority, as Darwin did, but that they are unreliable. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 05:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
::State the fringe source with attribution. As a general practice, trying to portray fringe views by third-hand comments of their opponents is not a reliable sourcing. In an article with a mainstream topic one can and should use scholarly second-party sources and avoid even mentioning UNDUE views that are not mainstream and hence also OFFTOPIC. But in an article whose topic is fringe views one should directly convey fringe views while being clear that they are not mainstream, and neutral second-party sources are probably just not available. To relate what fringe views say, it’s better to actually relate what they say and directly cite to where they say it. Any proponent pieces and opposing pieces should be treated as [[WP:BIASED]] sources by stating attribution. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:::[[WP:PRIMARY]] disagrees with you: {{tq|primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them}}
:::Creationist publishers are not reliable. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 13:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::::On the contrary, that agrees with me in that [[WP:SECONDARY]] sources are preferable, repeated at [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]], and those reliable secondary sources should be the source for any article statement of evaluation and synthesis. Opposing advocates are not disinterested secondary sources in this context of articles on fringe topics. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 15:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::Everybody who understands the subject of evolution is an {{tq|Opposing advocate}}, so your criterion leaves only ignoramuses as reliable sources. Creationism is just like other pseudosciences and is treated as such. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 16:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::Hmmm, this provides an example why the context of non-consensus views needs directs cites to unusual sources. Distinguishing factually what was said versus what is consensus views requires avoiding sources that do not separate fact from denunciation, so the scholastic honesty of stating the non-consensus view may need to go to the PRIMARY. Whether it is ‘what the Daily Mail said’ or ‘what John Doe blogged about himself’ or what some evolution objection was ... for [[WP:RS]] “the policy on sourcing is [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]”.
::::::On a side note, are there any biologists having enough hubris to claim complete understanding of evolution or referring to those lacking such as “ignoramuses”? Such claims would appear to have gone too far and hurt their own credibility. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 20:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::: It would be unprofessional for true professional biologist to use such unprofessional language. --[[User:StellarNerd|StellarNerd]] ([[User talk:StellarNerd|talk]]) 20:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Biologists don't engage with creationism in a professional capacity, because they are scientists, and there's no science to be found in creationism. [[User:HappyMcSlappy|<span style="color:#660066;">'''Happy'''</span>]] '''([[User talk:HappyMcSlappy|<small>Slap me</small>]])''' 22:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071 I wouldn't be too sure about that]. See sections 6 and 7. I agree that to have a consistent article you need to use the primary sources. [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 19:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Neither of the authors of that paper are biologists. Thorvaldsen has a degree in [[bioinformatics]], but that's not biology, but the development of tools and mathematical methods for use by biologists. The other is a mathematician.
::::::::::Also, they're both creationists who used deceptive tactics to get their paper published. See [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320303118 the publisher's disclaimer]. [[User:HappyMcSlappy|<span style="color:#660066;">'''Happy'''</span>]] '''([[User talk:HappyMcSlappy|<small>Slap me</small>]])''' 19:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::Looks like the only thing they had added to was the keyword section. The words "intelligent design" and other "design" references are still in the article, so that they used "deceptive tactics" doesn't make sense to me. In any case, biologists - [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw4056 yes, bioligists] - respond to Behe's work at various times. It's possible to have a conversation here without hurling an insult like "ignoramous". It just gets the conversation off track. [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 00:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::Only if people keep harping about it. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 04:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::The disclaimer by the journal explains it all quite clearly, so if you don't understand, there isn't much I can do to fix that. Your new link is a book review. I promise you that not one experiment was run, not one culture grown, not one beaker sterilized in the writing of that review. Honestly, it's rather odd that you seem to think you've a leg to stand on here: You're arguing that biologists take creationism seriously, when the fact that they don't is widely acknowledged, even by creationists. [[User:HappyMcSlappy|<span style="color:#660066;">'''Happy'''</span>]] '''([[User talk:HappyMcSlappy|<small>Slap me</small>]])''' 15:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The source I cited challenging Behe was published in an academic journal; not everything is an experiment. And the disclaimer is no surprise, the predictable uproar is consistent with being cancelled these days. But the peer-reviewed article is still there. NOW, if we could get back to the topic of this section which is how are you supposed to write an unconventional article like this if you don't use unconventional sources. [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::"Peer-reviewed" is not enough. See [[WP:RS]].
::::::::::::::{{tq|how are you supposed to write an unconventional article like this if you don't use unconventional sources}} You won't get around [[WP:RS]]. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 04:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Book reviews are not normally peer reviewed. Your assertion to the contrary requires evidence.
::::::::::::::I'm going to stop discussing this with you now, because explaining why creationist POVs do not belong on this project is tantamount to explaining why water is wet: If it actually requires explanation, then no amount of explanation will be sufficient to foster understanding. [[User:HappyMcSlappy|<span style="color:#660066;">'''Happy'''</span>]] '''([[User talk:HappyMcSlappy|<small>Slap me</small>]])''' 05:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::When I said "peer-review" I was referring to the article with the disclaimer...the point here is that you said biologists do not engage with IDers in any professional way, but the review in a scholarly journal by biologists proves otherwise...a mistake you made but everyone makes them. But I agree, enough of this. [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 13:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::QED. [[User:HappyMcSlappy|<span style="color:#660066;">'''Happy'''</span>]] '''([[User talk:HappyMcSlappy|<small>Slap me</small>]])''' 19:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Nah. [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 23:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|requires avoiding sources that do not separate fact from denunciation}} This excludes creationist sources.
:::::::I have discussed creationists for several years. Ignoramus is the correct word. You don't need a lot of knowledge to discern that, let alone {{tq|complete understanding of evolution}}. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 14:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you but that’s ‘avoiding sources that do not separate fact from denunciation’ about the article topic. Anti-creationists just are not RS about objections, any more than creationists should be allowed as cites in the [[Evolution]] article. It is a matter of journalistic ethics and credible content about objections to state the fringe source with attribution. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 13:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Since creationists typically manage to cram about three rookie mistakes into one sentence on average, if we used their wording, we would have to explain in detail all the things that are wrong with the way they are wording it. That would be too much detail, so, paraphrasing by actual experts is better.
:::::::::Of course you would regard scientific sources (what you call "anti-creationist") as non-RS, but you have no consensus for that. Scientific sources are fine. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 06:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::What are "three rookie mistakes" in this example of an objection to evolution from a prominent Ider? (I am giving you the benefit of a paragraph and not a sentence): "As I have laid out in various publications (e.g., Bechly & Meyer 2017) and lectures, the fossil record demonstrates that the history of life was not a series of gradual transformations by an accumulation of small changes over long periods of time. Instead of conforming to this gradualist prediction of Darwin’s theory of evolution, the fossil record consistently documents a series of saltational transitions with abrupt appearances of new body plans within very short windows of time. This implies a fatal problem for Darwinism called the waiting time problem, because population genetic calculations and simulations show that the windows of time established by the fossil record are orders of magnitude too short to accommodate the required genetic changes for these body plan transformations." [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 00:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|very short windows of time}}—what is this: creative writing or science? That very short time, e.g. the Cambrian explosion, meant in reality millions of years. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 00:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::"Millions of years" is very short in terms of the age of earth and the fossil record. This is common speech in science. Common. [[User:Subuey|Subuey]] ([[User talk:Subuey|talk]]) 00:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You would be right if speaking of [[geology]], [[biology]] is however another science and it is not written in the stars that many species cannot appear during some millions of years.
:::::::::::::And if you're speaking of https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution , that's a controversy ''within'' mainstream science; ID is a controversy ''outside'' of science. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 01:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::We're not doing journalism, we are writing a [[WP:MAINSTREAM|mainstream encyclopedia]], just like Britannica and Larousse. So, obviously, we have no reason to obey the ethics of journalism. See https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/sciencetoolkit_04 [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 08:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{reflist-talk}}
== NPOV issues 2023 ==
| 