Talk:Frank Lewis Marsh

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Seventh-day Adventist Church Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church 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.Seventh-day Adventist ChurchWikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist ChurchTemplate:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist ChurchSeventh-day Adventist Church articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:
edit history watch purge Expand "Glacier View Controversy" section, to include more background, history, theological issues, and details of the Glacier View meeting itself Add to "Adventist Responses to Criticisms" section, ideally with material from Adventist scholars etc.

Creationism: Young Earth creationism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism 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.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frank Lewis Marsh. 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) 18:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

removal of reliably sourced material[edit]

I am puzzled why sourced material from a highly respected source – Numbers, “The Creationists” - has been removed from the article. Here are two paragraph from Numbers’ book from which the material was derived. Then follows the removed material.

Page 151-152

“Although Dobzhansky found Marsh's ideas scientifically invalid and religiously subversive, he respected the church-college biologist for being "the only living scientific anti-evolutionist." The obscure creationist, for his part, could scarcely conceal his delight at having the unexpected chance to argue his case before one of the leading evolutionists in the world. In response to Dobzhansky's comment about outbidding the evolutionist, Marsh amended and clarified his position. He explained that God in originally stocking the world with plants and animals had created not only "kinds" but "varieties" within those kinds, capable of crossbreeding. Thus he professed not to claim, for example, that all dogs and foxes had descended from a single ancestor-ignoring for the moment the problem of overcrowding on Noah's ark. And though he had said virtually nothing about the mechanism of change in his book, he now admitted that the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest were "really extremely important" in explaining the present distribution of species.”

“The central issue separating the two biologists hinged on the nature of scientific proof. Marsh, who assimilated all the evidence of micro-evolution into his creationist paradigm of changes within "kinds," demanded nothing less than laboratory-based demonstrations of macroevolution. But, as Dobzhansky pointed out, the evidence for such largescale evolution rested on inference, not direct observation. Because macroevolution took place in geological time, he patiently explained, it could "be proven or disproven only by inference from the available evidence." Marsh, predictably, found this argument unconvincing. "Alas! Inferential evidence again!" he exclaimed. "Is there no real proof for this theory of evolution which we may grasp in our hands?" Eventually, explanation gave way to frustration, with Dobzhansky finally brushing Marsh's concerns aside with the quip "If you demand that biologists would demonstrate the origin of a horse from a mouse in the laboratory then you just can not be convinced.”

The removed material:

Marsh proposed that God originally stocked the world with plants and animals creating not only "kinds" but "varieties" within those kinds all sharing the same built in genetic variability thus capable of crossbreeding. He accepted the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest as "really extremely important" in explaining the present distribution of species. The central issue separating the two biologists hinged on the nature of scientific proof. Marsh, accepted the evidence of laboratory-based, scientific demonstrations of microevolution of changes within "kinds" within his paradigm of creationism. He required the same for macroevoution. But Dobzhansky said that such large scale evolution could "be proven or disproven only by inference, not laboratory-based science, from the available evidence." Marsh found this argument unconvincing. "Inferential evidence again!"[9] he exclaimed, "Is there no real scientific proof for this theory of evolution which we may grasp in our hands?" Dobzhansky brushed Marsh's concerns aside with the quip "If you demand that biologists would demonstrate the origin of a horse from a mouse in the laboratory then you just cannot be convinced."

I don’t see why this material cannot be reinserted right away. MontyTyson (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

either no one cares or they agree. So I reinserted the material.--MontyTyson (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

massive undue weight those quotes are not suitable for the article. 82.132.229.51 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]