Wikipedia:WikiProject/Origin of life and related debates

Principle 1 - allow all individual articles to exist in peace and to present the viewpoints unhindered by extensive rebuttals or criticisms. Evolution talks about the science of evolution and related discussions. Creationism (and sub-branches) describe the principles of each thought system, and give points of distinction with other related systems (non-scientific ones). Creationism does not need to be contrasted with "Evolution" any more than to note that it is in marked contrast - we don't need 45 lines of debate.

Principle 2 - have articles that specifically deal with the "Debates" located on pages that are clearly marked as such. The debates and refutations are clearly worthy topics in their own right, and are distinct from the individual schools of thought. Most of us here are evolutionists, so this is a case where we REALLY have to observe NPOV - we cannot pronounce evolution to be "correct".

As a beginning outline I propose pages for:

• Evolution - presenting the scientific study and scientific aspects, free of any controversy, other than those scientific disputes which may exist internally in the discipline.
• Creationism - and related subdivisions, presenting the main body of thought, unhindered by extensive scientific refutations and rebuttals. This also permits non-Judeo-Christian proposals if (or when) they exist.
• Debate pages, starting with a central "science vs religion" overview debate article and then extending to more specific "A vs B" debates.

Acknowledgement of the existence of the debates can be handled by appropriate links from all "school of thought" pages.

Suggestions for the above are welcome. - MMGB

I respectfully disagree. None of us here belong to a religion called "Evolutionism", and therefore none of us are "evolutionists". We simply are educated and literaye. Must we rewrite all our entries on the Earth's topology and geography to give equal time and space to those who say that the Earth is flat (some still do say this!) Wouldn't that be a truly NPOV? Should we rewrite all the entries on geology and the related sciences to say that it is only a "theory" that our world is 4.5 billion years old, and that it is equally valid to say that the world really is only 6000 years old, as fundamentalist Jews and Christians claim? No. At some point, an Encyclopaedia becomes worthless if it accepts such extreme relativism. The standard proposed has two logical consequences: (A) Ignore the NPOV, except when it comes to what Chrisitians say about evolution, but this is not fair; or (B) insist on this version of NPOV for the bizarre claims about science made by every religion and cult. Should the many scinece entries of Wikipedia be rewritten to give equal credence to the claims of L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, or the Nation of Islam's odd views about the creation of thr world? Why single out only evolution, and only Christianity? We can - and must - point out that evolution is a scientifically proven fact. The fact that some people have positions to the contrary is a religious position, but that belongs in a side-entry on faith. RK

There are some serious misunderstandings in your complaint. Hopefully I can elaborate on these.

Implicit in your comments is the belief that science is inherently more "correct" than a religious viewpoint. (I obviously agree with you) However, we CANNOT ever take this position - it is not ours to decide. Creationism does not withstand scientific criticism in any way, but if you choose to reject science as matter of faith, then fine, off you go. Science cannot argue ith someone who rejects the fundamentals of science (such as the documentary and evidentiary record, laboratory testing, etc). This happens regularly, and it happens with "educated and literary people" - you are asserting that educated people MUST accept the evolutionary and scientific viewpoint, and frankly, not all do.

To reiterate: the statement "evolution is a scientific proven fact" means that the idea holds dominion within the realm of science. There are, however, a substantial number of people who hold that "science does not explain the world, or why it exists".

There are even some scientists who question some of the evidence given for evolution, such as photographs of Pepper Moths resting on tree trunks -- staged, because the only light on the underside of leaves. Or drawings of embryos, a deliberate hoax. Note that I am not asserting these objections here (I'll do it elsewhere, next week maybe) but pointing out that there may be debate within the scientific community according to its own rules about the merits of the evidence supporting a particular hypothesis. If you've studied anything about the history of science, you find that the process is not an unbroken string of success. There have been several major retractions. Hmm, I guess that should go under the History of Science[?]. Anyway, I'm glad there's some room for debate on Wiki. Maybe, it's my role to stimulate and (I hope) summarize the debates. Whatever you do, don't put Flat Earth into each and every astronomy article -- I'd go to the ends of the earth to get away from that (pun intended). --Ed Poor

By substantial I mean millions of average citizens, and not a few scientologists. This may horrify us, we may regard them as ignorant, but you cannot make someone accept that "science is the best explanation for why the universe/world/ whatever is the way it is", if they don't want to.

It is easily possible (if you want to) dismiss science as simply a variant of "faith" (however to dismiss science as "just another form of faith" in this way is also to dismiss "rational thought", "evidence" and truckloads of other compelling stuff, but hey, people can and DO, do this). A variant of this approach is to be selective, to pick and choose the bits from science that please your personal ideology and reject the bits that don't. This is irrational, but people still do it.

The purpose of my plan is to present the various schools of thought (the scientific viewpoint being one of them) as independent. I am baffled as to how you got from my statements above to the idea that I am implying that "evolutionism" is a religious viewpoint.

The comparison with the Flat Earth notion has been raised before, and is rejected on the basis of sheers weight of numbers. Very few people accept the "flat earth" idea. However a vast number of people genuinely believe in creationism, in fact vastly more than in pure scientific evolution, and we have no right to condemn their belief in the 'pedia (condemn them to heart's content on your own turf), simply because we do not share them. It is NPOV to not enter into the debate or to take a side (science vs faith). However it remains NPOV to examine the debate as a distinct subject in its own right. Evolution is not "right" or "wrong", regardless of your personal beliefs.

All I want to do is distinguish the articles about the "schools of thought" themselves, from the debate between the various forms of thought. You have somehow taken this as a defence of creationist thought - please re-read my origianl words and tell me how to improve the text so as to make this distinction clearer. - MMGB

See also : WikiProject