Talk:Evolution denial

Merge

I agree that this article should be merged into Creation-evolution controversy. As a redundant, somewhat poorly written stub, it really doesn't have enough original information to justify an article of its own. If there is, in fact, any new information in the article, it can be merged into the main article.

If this is a high-traffic article, it might be more helpful to have it redirect to Creation-evolution controversy. --Tschel 16:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Should we also make clear that the term "Holocaust denial" is used only by those favoring correct history? 85.140.12.194 07:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it OK to have a "Holocaust denial" entry but not an "Evolution denial" section? Why don't wikkipedea merge "Holocaust denial" with a "Holocaust controversy" section? I cant see how a "Creationist controversy" section could adequately cover this subject. If you don't cover this subject then are you not siding with the Creationist?Jodywebster 21:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Among other issues, the term "evolution denial" is very povy by the use of the term "denial." If the article does stay it would at minimum need to make clear that the term "evolution denial" is used only by those favoring evolution. JoshuaZ 15:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your point, Joshua? Scientists and those who favor science, favor evolution. A certain narrow subset of some religions believes (or at least pretends to believe) that the issue is unsettled; just as a certain narrow subset of extreme reactionaries believes (or at least pretends to believe) that the Holocaust never happened. Parallel situations, parallel terminology. "Denial" is just and appropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is utterly useless. Any data found here (and there really is none) could be merged into "evolution denial". If this term is so important, why isn't it in the literature? I've never seen it. re-direct Phiwum 18:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Wrong page, this is a redirect. To propose deletion, see WP:RFD. As for the confession of scientists, some historians make a case about it like Martin J. S. Rudwick. —PaleoNeonate – 11:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The idea to link here from Pseudoscience is an obvious information funnel. The consensus is that "Evolution is true", although scientists agree that "science is contingent". An obvious contradiction arises when being dogmatic about something you say is not dogmatic. Science is agreeably didactic, so this should be used as the bedrock upon which to build science, rather than dogmatism. When clicking through to the final destination, the reader is presented with an article that makes it appear that only religions are at odds with evolution theory. The WP establishment has designed the site ideology in such a way as to place all religions (and by extension, all of the religious) at odds with what they might call "advanced civilization", or possibly "going with the consensus". Consensus by a group, for reasons given below, should not be extended to all because that constitutes forced ideology, which is a bottleneck to intellectual progress. I would suggest either expanding this article in place, or rewriting the destination page to remove the assumption POV that only religious persons reject evolution theory, substantiating the WP:NPOV claim above. As a theory, evolution fails the scientific method test. While Darwin used much observation, he authored his theory without performing a commensurate amount of experiments (I haven't read all of his work, but can't identify a single experiment he ran from what I have read). As a result, he wasn't able to decipher the nature of inheritance. It was Gregor Mendel, a Jesuit (religious) monk, who ran the experiments that determined the true properties of inheritance Mendelian inheritance. Because his work was incorporated into the experimentally unvalidated theory of evolution, some might believe "the religious" have never contributed anything significant to any field of science, while the "unreligious/secular" have. It may also give uninformed readers the impression that Darwin was more intelligent than he actually was. This raises the question of whether an unreported WP:COI is in the editing/admin loop. The click-through sequencing used here does nothing to give an accurate representation of reality. From Pseudoscience to here, to Rejection of evolution by religious groups leaves the reader with the wrong impression: "if you want to align with pseudoscience, join a religious group". At least, the target article should be dissociated from religion, and focus primarily on "rejection of evolution theory". If there are objections to the logic or methodology incorporated in evolution theory, they can be dealt with sans the logical fallacy of association to any group.BRealAlways (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC) If you are going to continue to make allegations about “an unreported WP:COI is in the editing/admin loop”you need to name names at either WP:COIN or WP:ANI. Without doing that these are just bad faith allegations. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC) User:Phiwum You probably don't see that usage in the mainstream because it is clearly divisive (A house divided against itself ...), and would stir up too much attention. The "safety" provided here shields an ideology from general intervention and feedback. I call that the ideology be stricken from the record.BRealAlways (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC) There is no ideology here, unless you call actual science an ideology. Despite all pretense, there is no "controversy" among actual working scientists. And the idea that those of us who use and trust actual science have an "unreported COI" because we don't adhere to your odd interpretation of your purely-religious beliefs, is so strange as to be impossible to rebut. I mean, how do you rebut, "Darwin had a purple aura" or "Stephen Jay Gould used mind control" sorts of accusations? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM. 08:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC) This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.