Talk:History of the creation–evolution controversy

History of the creation–evolution controversy was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 6, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
April 23, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

History of Science High‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Natural theology#The Bridgewater Treatises|Bridgewater Treatises]] The anchor (#The Bridgewater Treatises) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

The current controversy[edit]

I suggest The current controversy section is moved to the Creation-evolution controversy entry and removed from here. Terjen 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to stay there, but we can't just have an article that abruptly cuts off before the modern day. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The current controversy is off topic for an article about the history of the controversy, and covered by other entries like the Creation-evolution controversy and the Politics of creationism. Perhaps you could just link to the other entries in the introduction instead? A major benefit is that it strictly limits the scope of the article, so that it doesn't end up with bloat about what's going on currently. Terjen 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Possibly. But it does seem that even a history article should brefly state current events. On the other hand, too much of that and we end up with a section on Kitzmiller, andother on the DI, etc. I don't know: You may be right. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not liking this lead...[edit]

Speaking strictly from a GA criteria standpoint, (Yea, I know, weird for a creationist eh?) I think the lead in this article is extremely problematic in terms of GA status. I don't know if this article was split off of some other article i've contributed signifigantly to, but I think it only fair to give a warning, right now, the lead doesn't actually mention Creationism, Evolution, or anything related directly to the controversy at all, it just has a few events of history which are suggested as places where the church did things which might seem similar to interactions between Creationism and Evolution, I think. It doesn't really appear to summarize much in the article, and since WP:LEAD is in the GA criteria, I think this article's GA nomination will be doomed to failure if the lead isn't re-written. Homestarmy 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. This was split off of Creation-evolution controversy, and probably needs a little more fixing up. I'll see what I can do. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments[edit]

The previous commentator is correct about the lead. It should provide a brief overview of the material covered by the article not a historical lead in.

The article could use a short section in the front, perhaps Before Darwin, that would provide some historical context. It could allude briefly to natural theology, and perhaps the controversy over publication of the Vestiges of Creation.

There needs to be some allusion to George McCready Price and the Seventh Day Adventists, and the influence works like The New Geology had on the movement of fundamentalists towards the YEC positions of the Genesis Flood and the ICR. This would provide the same sort of context that the brief comments on the modern synthesis do for the BSCS textbooks.

Some of the time line entries (especially the early ones) don't make much sense. A time line in an article on the history of a public controversy should focus on events that contributed to the controversy not on the origin of scientific or philosophical ideas. I would think the publication of Vestiges of Creation had a bigger impact on the controversy than the publication of Zoomania. I also think Principles of Geology had a bigger impact than Hutton's work. The entry for Gosse and Omphalos is more like a subsection than a time line entry.

Near the end of the article there should be at least a section on the spread of the controversy outside the US. Right now the only reference to it is the one time line item about the Italian education minister. The final chapter of the expanded (2006) version of Numbers book is a good source.

I will try and make some contributions myself Rusty Cashman 09:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My very initial two cents: the bibliography is sprawling, but only a fraction of the sources are actually cited and some are not particularly good. Meanwhile, two of the best broad secondary sources are not used at all: Larson's Trial and Error" (for the American legal controversies) and Michael Ruse's The Evolution-Creation Struggle. I will also try to make some contributions to this article soon.--ragesoss 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA[edit]

This article has been passed as a good article. I would like to see the lead section rewritten to more accurately summarise the content of the article. With the exception of this lead section the article is well written and includes citations where required (a great many actually). Further, it appears, to an outsider to the debate, neutral and comprehensive. It is also relatively stable and contains suitable images. Nice work. MidgleyDJ 07:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this article good was the work of a creationist who was run off by Adam and the evolutionists. LOL. And that creationist was actually going to the library, and not using google to search partisan web sites, for source material. Pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.215.17.61 (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

GA Review[edit]

No offense to User:MidgleyDJ, but the lead doesn't seem like something that could just stand for a little bit of improvement, it still looks almost the same as when I first made my comment about how off-topic it was. I'm filing a WP:GA/R over this article. Homestarmy 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to support you on that. My negative comments have yet to be addressed either. Besides the lead, I am especially concerned about the time line entry for Omphalos which is just entirely inappropriate in size or scope for a time line entry, and in my opinion is only marginally relevent to the article.Rusty Cashman 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA delisted[edit]

This article has been delisted per the now archived Good article review and the instructions at said archive. IvoShandor 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed[edit]

The following was removed from the article pending citation. "Coinciding with the rise of [[eugenics]],{{Fact|date=April 2007}}" ImprobabilityDrive 04:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Timeline needs more citations. -- 207.162.58.17 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a scientific controversy[edit]

Hello. I have a request: specify in the introduction that this "controversy" is not scientific, but in religion and politics:

"The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics."^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

Please see Teach the Controversy. Thank you, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006
^ "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006
^ "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89
^ Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the creation–evolution controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140621050711/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the creation–evolution controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[nejm-1] "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006

[AAAS-2] "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006

[kitzmiller_pg89-3] "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89

[4] Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]