User:Dweller/evol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that life had evolved was debated even before Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species. Evolution is still controversial for some religious people but it has been accepted by scientists. Religious people worry about the philosophical, social and religious implications of evolution. Some religious people believe evolution goes against their religious texts. The science of evolution, that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection, is standard in the scientific papers and books.[1] Supported by a large quantity of reliable scientific evidence, evolution is supported by 99.9% of the scientific community.[2]

  1. ^ For an overview of the philosophical, religious, and cosmological controversies, see: Dennett, D (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0684824710.
    *For the scientific and social reception of evolution in the 19th and early 20th centuries, see: Johnston, Ian C. "History of Science: Origins of Evolutionary Theory". And Still We Evolve. Liberal Studies Department, Malaspina University College. Retrieved 2007-05-24.
    *Bowler, PJ (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea, Third Edition, Completely Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520236936.
    *Zuckerkandl E (2006). "Intelligent design and biological complexity". Gene. 385: 2–18. PMID 17011142.
  2. ^ Delgado, Cynthia (2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine". NIH Record (National Institutes of Health). Retrieved 2007-12-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

... still controversial for some religious people but it has been accepted by scientists. I'm thinking that line would generate a few hundred pages of protest for creationist across the globe!--Random Replicator (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Not even sure what to call the section. Social upheaval -- nonscientific disagreements -- If you are opposed to a new section --- no need to beat this up. A simple statement that you feel it is in the best interest of the entry to remain focused only on the science will be adequate!--Random Replicator (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution in Education[edit]

Ok --- does this one line represent the controversy you wish to acknowledge?

Although Darwin outlined the basis for evolution over two hundred years ago, the theory continues to be a source of contention among the general population. Many of the objections center around perceived conflicts between evolution and the many religious views as to the source of species diversity.

Now is it possible to make such a statement without flying into a defense of the evolution side????

Overkill: Ignore: Despite, overwhelming support for theory of evolution within the scientific community, the debate has spilled-over into issues involving education policy, specifically as to what should or should not be taught in public schools. In the United States, this has resulted in numerous court cases, including the notable “Scopes Monkey Trial”. In December, 2005 , in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District judge John ??? III, ruled that a proposed alternative to the theory of evolution, known as intelligent design, represented a faith based explanations and thus violated the separation of church and state clause in the first Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In response to increased challenges from, religious organizations, several scientific organizations representing many of the world’s most prominent scientists in evolution biology have taken a more aggressive stance in the defense of the theory. Publications such as Science, Evolution, and Creationism; by the National Academy of Sciences have been released in attempt to dispel some of the misconceptions that account for much of the controversy.

I feel like i have a lightning rod in my hand while standing on a golf course during a raging storm!!!--Random Replicator (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, RR - that text concentrates too much on education, and on US-specific details, and is far too defensive. If there is to be a section on the objections/controversy, it should be short and simple, stating a few basic facts and providing links to other articles. Very dangerous to get into the detail and risk that lightning strike. I'd go for something based on a moderate expansion of the "see also" section that David D. added here. Below is my attempt (probably too gung-ho and POV-pushy!) - but I'm still far from convinced of the need for such a section in any shape or form. Actually, I rather like the idea of just leaving DD's "see also" list as it is. Snalwibma (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Responses to evolution[edit]

The idea that life had evolved was debated even before Darwin, but to this day evolution is controversial for some religious people, and a number of objections are still raised. In spite of the evidence, and in the face of overwhelming support among the scientific community, there are several common misconceptions about the nature of evolution and evolutionary theory, and there is controversy about evolution (especially concerning the teaching of it in schools) in some parts of the world.

A defensive tone --- In "spite" of --- the "overwhelming" --- which was just edited out. Anyone reading that would know we are defending against something. And we seem to be unable to illuminate on what that something is without turning this into an equal time entry. Where do you purpose such lines should go? Summary? Introduction? Can this be done without shifting to a defensive mode? Ummmm By they way ... a section attempt is a bit over the top. That became apparent as soon I added the first line. Figured I would start in a big way. --Random Replicator (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Although Darwin outlined the basis for evolution over two hundred years ago, the theory continues to be a source of contention among the general population. Many of the objections center around perceived conflicts between evolution and the many religious views as to the source of species diversity. This is in striking contrast to support for the theory within the scientific community (99.99%. ------ Stop ------ Nothing more.... No defense .... no offense just a statement. --Random Replicator (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


I want this one... why am I in here by myself? --Random Replicator (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Although Darwin outlined the basis for evolution over two hundred years ago, the theory continues to be a source of contention among the general population. Many of the objections center on perceived conflicts between evolution and the many religious views as to the source of species diversity. This is in striking contrast to the level of support for the theory by scientist where it is has reached 99.9% acceptance within the scientific community .[1]


No I Like this better.


Although Darwin outlined the basis for evolution over two hundred years ago, the theory continues to be a source of contention among the general population. Many of the objections center on perceived conflicts between evolution and the many religious views, as to the source of species diversity.[2] This is in striking contrast to the level of support for the theory by scientist where it is has reached 99.9% acceptance within the scientific community .[3]

Dweller starts tweaking[edit]

Just a little tweak for now:

Although Darwin outlined the basis for evolution over 150 years ago, the theory continues to be a source of contention among the general population. Many of the objections center on perceived conflicts between evolution and the many religious views, as to the source of species diversity.[4] This is in striking contrast to the level of support for the theory by scientists where it is has reached 99.9% acceptance within the scientific community .[5]

How does that extra wikilink sit? Also, I think it'd be nice to include reference to the storm of controversy in Darwin's day - the parag currently says "continues to", implying a past. We could briefly address this. Also, not sure if anyone's watching the talk page, so I'll repeat here - where would this para go in the article? --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is actually spread out everywhere: I'll propose this here and the talk page as well: I'd rather not clutter up the Fa any more as long as we are attempting a resolution. What --- I'm at my best at 2:00 AM!--Random Replicator (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Although Darwin outlined evolution almost one hundred and fifty years ago, the theory remains controversial amongst the general population world-wide. Many of the objections. center on perceived conflicts between evolution and the many religious views, as to the origin of species diversity.[6] Darwin’s earliest critics objected to the theories implication that that all life, including human, was a product of natural processes. These objections are in striking contrast to the level of support for the theory by scientist today, where it is has reached 99.9% acceptance within the scientific community .[7]'

I think you missed my amend/comments above, but no sweat. Picking up the important stuff:

  1. I think we're getting close
  2. Where would the final version of this parag be placed?
  3. I proposed wikilinking "the many religious views" to Creation-evolution controversy
  4. typo "by scientist today" should of course be "by scientists today"
  5. logically, sentence three should be moved to the start, I think

Agreed this is a bit all over the place; creating this sandbox was intended to centralise, but appreciate it's not easy, especially as not all of the contributors to the article are cool-headed. --Dweller (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Although Darwin outlined evolution almost one hundred and fifty years ago, the theory remains controversial amongst the general population world-wide. Darwin’s earliest critics objected to the theories implication that all life, including human, was a product of natural processes. Many of the objections center on perceived conflicts between evolution and the many religious views, as to the origin of species diversity.[8] These objections are in striking contrast to the level of support for the theory by more than 99 percent of those in the scientific community today.[9]

Added Dweller's suggestions (see immediately above) and a few more tweeks. David D. (Talk) 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I would back this one. If we should get consensus here -- then I would say ... next take it to talk page with support statement below it so that it doesn't get buried in all the discussion. I am anxious to see Wassup's view and Dwellers on this version. Open mind now people! --Random Replicator (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Couple of things:

  1. Showing my ignorance here. Shouldn't it be "theory's implication", or is it because you're referring to evolution as a multiplicity of theories?
  2. Where would this parag go in the article?

But I like what I see. --Dweller (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammar is not my strong suit. "Theory's" may well be right. See the talk page of this subpage for a discussion I started, re: the location. David D. (Talk) 21:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I still like the monkey bit. Nevertheless, seriously, the fundamentalist’s fundamental objections are not about the origin of species diversity but that all species are related and have a common ancestor; that is the radical statement of Darwin and presents the biblical conundrum to those who place inordinate emphasis on the literalness of Genesis. Even if biologists agreed that the only species on earth were those specifically named in the bible (absurd as that seems), the creationist would still be outraged if the biologist were to state the fact that all the beasts on the Ark were related and had a common ancestor. That is, the very fact - indisputable- of the relationship of all life without the theory of evolution is still a threat to the creationists. It is why the Intelligent Design debate can never satisfy the die-hard creationist; the bible says, to paraphrase, that God created each thing separately, including man and women (of course, the bible is itself self-contradictory on these points, but that is another vicious debate). No relationship between living things but only with a creator God is the view of the fundamentalist. Sorry to cause more stress. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Although Darwin outlined evolution almost one hundred and fifty years ago, the theory remains controversial amongst the general population world-wide. Darwin’s earliest critics objected to the theories implication that all life, including human, was a product of natural processes. Many of the objections center on the difference between evolution and the many religious views, that dispute the idea of a common ancestor.[10] These objections are in striking contrast to the level of support for the theory by more than 99 percent of those in the scientific community today.[11]

I actually thought the the phrase "origin of species diversity" was a nod to the distinction of the process from a religious view and an evolutionary view, i.e. creation vs common ancestor. How is the adjustment above to try and make this point more explicit? David D. (Talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is better! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to make it easier for others this link shows the differences between the two versions. David D. (Talk) 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Tinkering away[edit]

Another version - as if we needed another version. And, yup, I've gone and done it: I put God into the debate!

Although Darwin published the 'Origin of Species' almost one hundred and fifty years ago, the theory's conclusions that all life, including human, was a product of natural processes still meets resistance in the general population. The notion that all life on earth has a common ancestor is disputed by some religious people who believe that the different types of life were separately and specially created supernaturally . [12] This dispute is in striking contrast to the level of support for the theory by more than 99 percent of those within the scientific community today.[13]

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

*who believe that God created the different types of life separately and specially

  • who believed that life was Divinely created.
  • who believed that life was Divinely created in its present form; fixed and unchanging.
I'm just so gun shy of the word God here. Maybe I'm over-reacting. But I would never say it that way in a high school class. Divine instead of God? ; although I'm still leaning toward David's version. Thou I do wish we would pick one and work with it!!!! I can accept anyone of the latter here; so my needs have been meet. Anyone else; mostly because my back is hurting from sitting in this chair so long. The goal is universal acceptance on this page first. Let me know when you see one you can live with ---- other than the one you wrote! --Random Replicator (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

One problem with using God is it is singular. David D. (Talk) 23:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've turned god into a super hero. Now, the kids will be safely thinking of Superman and Aslan. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Any chance that someone can print the final version here: If we can get it to the Talk page --- then squeeze it into the summary before FA closes that would be great! Its now down to the two of you David and Wassup--- at least on this page. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy[edit]

I think we've reached a point where I'm content with the direction you're going and am happy to leave it to you to finesse it (with or without God!). I've never pretended to be an expert in anything other than (maybe) WP:WIAFA and it would ill-become me to be involved in the detail of something beyond my knowledge.

If you want to take this to the article talk to finish up, that's fine by me. I trust you'll let me know if consensus rejects this utterly or, more optimistically, when something's crafted and inserted.

I'm looking forward to changing to "support".

I hope you don't feel like I've been a pedantic hindrance, or a POV pusher. My intentions with this, as with every FAC I work at, is simply to ensure that articles that reach FA espouse our very highest values. This has been an unusual piece of work - usually it's copyediting, MOS formatting and other dullsville stuff - and a little stressful. Being a lone voice against what sometimes felt like a team was the opposite of the usual (lone nominator vs bunch of FAC critics) and difficult and I constantly reassessed whether what I was doing really was for the good. I hope you think the end result was worth it; I think it was. Mostly, you've been very patient with me and for this I thank you.

Meantime, please also see the important conversation about where it should go, on this subpage's talk, which I suppose should also go back to article talk. Thanks to you all and congratulations. Good luck with your fellow collaborators at the article talk. (Of course, feel free to enjoy my hospitality if you want to kick this about more here before going back to article talk!) --Dweller (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop you a line if/when it gets included --- hopefully before the FA closes! Enjoyed and come back anytime. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Final Version[edit]

Polish this version until it shines. i.e. edit it with abandon. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Although Darwin published the 'Origin of Species' almost one hundred and fifty years ago, the theory's conclusions that all life, including human, was a product of natural processes still meets resistance in the general population. The notion that all life on earth has a common ancestor is disputed by some religious people who believe that the different types of life were separately and specially created supernaturally . [14] This dispute is in striking contrast to the level of support for the theory by more than 99 percent of those within the scientific community today.[15]


  • Polish it David ...then please be so kind as to take what ever works for you to the talk page under a new section heading --- you have my vote of confidence and my undying gratitude! --Random Replicator (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Are we sure it is only "religious people" who dispute evolution? Isn't this primarily a US phenomenon? I'm sensing the need for caveats here. "Primarily religious conservatives in the US" or something like that. Awadewit | talk 00:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The less specific the better, IMO. We link to good articles that cover the details. I don't have time to look this over very critically right now. I'll look at it later but don't let that stop you working on it some more! David D. (Talk) 00:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not touching it; this represents the most fragile statement to date. One more edit and it my turn into a pumpkin! I think if we go with a US clause than it will be picked apart by others that wish to include other fundamentalist factions of religions opposition. Maybe the US just makes it high profile in the courts where the Taliban would just be-head you? I'm inclined to vague this to avoid exclusion. Wouldn't want to offend Ken Ham; he is Australian. I guess the other question is; where are we going to put it? --Random Replicator (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion at User talk:Dweller/evol about placement. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow we are all over the place! David take a quick peek there as you polish! --Random Replicator (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"Although Darwin published the 'Origin of Species' almost one hundred and fifty years ago, the book's thesis that all life, including human, was a product of natural processes still meets resistance in the general population. The notion that all life on earth has a common ancestor is disputed by some religious people who believe that the different types of life are due to special creation. [16] These objections are in striking contrast to the level of support for the theory by more than 99 percent of those within the scientific community today.[17]"

Here is my latest tweek See an approximation of the changes here. Is this a wrap? These versions seem to be converging nicely. David D. (Talk) 04:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's a wrap!. Thank you for taking the time to do the tweaking. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest one small change? In place of "the theory's conclusions that all life, including human, was a product of natural processes", I'd incline towards "the theory's conclusions that all life, including human, is a product of ongoing natural processes". Or is that too modern, and not a close enough reflection of Darwin. But it's not important. My general response is - great! Well written and well positioned within the article. Well done, guys. Snalwibma (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Delgado, Cynthia (2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine". NIH Record (National Institutes of Health). Retrieved 2007-12-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ DeVries A (2004). "The enigma of Darwin". Clio Med. 19 (2): 136–155. PMID 6085987.
  3. ^ Delgado, Cynthia (2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine". NIH Record (National Institutes of Health). Retrieved 2007-12-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ DeVries A (2004). "The enigma of Darwin". Clio Med. 19 (2): 136–155. PMID 6085987.
  5. ^ Delgado, Cynthia (2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine". NIH Record (National Institutes of Health). Retrieved 2007-12-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  6. ^ DeVries A (2004). "The enigma of Darwin". Clio Med. 19 (2): 136–155. PMID 6085987.
  7. ^ Delgado, Cynthia (2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine". NIH Record (National Institutes of Health). Retrieved 2007-12-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  8. ^ DeVries A (2004). "The enigma of Darwin". Clio Med. 19 (2): 136–155. PMID 6085987.
  9. ^ Delgado, Cynthia (2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine". NIH Record (National Institutes of Health). Retrieved 2007-12-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  10. ^ DeVries A (2004). "The enigma of Darwin". Clio Med. 19 (2): 136–155. PMID 6085987.
  11. ^ Delgado, Cynthia (2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine". NIH Record (National Institutes of Health). Retrieved 2007-12-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  12. ^ DeVries A (2004). "The enigma of Darwin". Clio Med. 19 (2): 136–155. PMID 6085987.
  13. ^ Delgado, Cynthia (2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine". NIH Record (National Institutes of Health). Retrieved 2007-12-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  14. ^ DeVries A (2004). "The enigma of Darwin". Clio Med. 19 (2): 136–155. PMID 6085987.
  15. ^ Delgado, Cynthia (2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine". NIH Record (National Institutes of Health). Retrieved 2007-12-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  16. ^ DeVries A (2004). "The enigma of Darwin". Clio Med. 19 (2): 136–155. PMID 6085987.
  17. ^ Delgado, Cynthia (2006). "Finding the Evolution in Medicine". NIH Record (National Institutes of Health). Retrieved 2007-12-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dweller/evol&oldid=184936627"