Talk:Evolutionism

/Archive1 - 2004, July-Sept - 33kb (not full yet)

Michael Ruse

"Philosopher of science Michael Ruse has more recently come to the conclusion that evolution is ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions."

The article says no such thing - I inserted a link. The Michael Ruse sentence above is not true (at least if it refers to this article) and should be removed. Is this just another typically dishonest creationist strategy?

I agree that it should be removed, but not because it is incorrect. He does actually say that. However, this article is not the right place for a sentence like this! The philosphical basis of all knowledge would have to be discussed to bring this statement in proper perspective. Awolf002 11:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Separation

This page should be merged with Creationism and Theory of Evolution. The essence of this page seems to condense down to the single sentence "Creationists refer to supporters of the Theory of Evolution as Evolutionism, seeking to treat it as a belief, rather than scientific theory". In addition, the existence of this page seems non NPOV. Therefore, for these two reasons, I have made this page a candidate for speedy deletion. CheeseDreams 20:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry. I don't understand. Do you disagree with the disambiguation that starts the page?

This page is about the origins of the terms and concepts of evolution, evolutionist, and evolutionism as used by Charles Darwin and his contemporaries. For technical details of the origin of species, see evolution; for other meanings, see evolution (disambiguation). ---Rednblu | Talk 20:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This has been changed into a VFD. Please comment there.

Michael Ruse 1993 AAAS speech

I cut the following questionable paragraph here because the following paragraph is irrelevant to the Evolutionism page. The Evolutionism page is not about the Creation vs. evolution debate.

<<Philosopher of science Michael Ruse has more recently come to the conclusion that evolution is ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions.>>

I think you have in mind a speech that Michael Ruse gave to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1993. In my opinion, what he was talking about is irrelevant to the Evolutionism page. If you get the whole speech and analyze it, I believe your analysis would be relevant to the Creation vs. evolution debate page. Would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The VFD page is veering towards making this page about the term as used in cultural anthropology, and moving all of the stuff about creationism to the Creation vs evolution debate page. Whether or not we agree on that I definitely agree that the above sentence has nothing to do with "Evolutionism" in any form and would, if it belongs on wikipedia at all, be best on C vs e debate. Joe D (t) 12:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to clear up VFD issues

The first section of this article is about the term's use in cultural anthropology / social sciences, though you'd be forgiven for not realising that as it really doesn't make it clear, and that the section spends so much time talking about Darwin may confuse things more.

The second section is about creation vs evolution, and whatever we decide here/VFD the two sections do not belong on the same page - if we vote to keep all content this must at least be a disambiguation page.

My own opinion is that the creationism stuff should be merged into the Creationism vs Evolution article, and we add a note "This page is about the Evolutionism as used in the social sciences; you may have been looking for the term used in the Creationism vs Evolution debate."

Joe D (t) 14:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be an acceptable solution CheeseDreams 19:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.s. the link is Creation vs. evolution debate CheeseDreams 19:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair deal. Let's do it. Kim Bruning 22:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I have already stated, I don't see this as an appropriate solution. The first section (Charles Darwin's (non-)use of the words evolution and evolutionism) belongs to evolution; the second one (usage by others) deserves a mention in evolution and/or evolution (disambiguation); the third one (use of evolutionism by creationists) should be moved to creation vs. evolution debate. There is no content which could not be merged elsewhere. This leaves us with the article being changed into a redirect; the best location would be evolution (disambiguation). - Mike Rosoft 13:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have you beed reading the discussion on the VFD? Evolutionism used in the first section of the page is NOT about evolution. You could be forgiven for thinking that the first time, it is a bit ambiguous and poorly introduced, but this has been mentioned countless times. Joe D (t) 16:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the last time, I did, and I am not changing my vote. (And the use/non-use of the word evolution/evolutionism by Charles Darwin in the Origin of Species is certainly relevant in the Evolution article. Not to mention that the first section barely mentions "evolutionism" at all.) - Mike Rosoft 03:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's because typically Evolutionism is not Evolution. Kim Bruning 20:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In that case, how is/was it relevant in the Evolutionism article? - Mike Rosoft 14:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--- <<Begin copy from the VfD page of votes against this proposal>>

For reference, I also have read and oppose the suggestion on Talk:Evolutionism to split the Evolutionism page into the POVs on "evolutionism." This suggested split is as much a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy as would be the split and merge of the Capitalism page into the Capital page and the PrivateOwnership vs. PublicOwnership debate page. Such a split into Main articles: with summaries on the MainPage might be NPOV appropriate if the Evolutionism page were huge, which it is not. A disambiguation page may be appropriate, but in my opinion, the naming convention for that disambiguation page should follow the NPOV naming-convention policy used in constructing the Capital (disambiguation) page. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:14, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--- <<End copy from the VfD page of votes against this proposal>>

I just created an Evolutionism (disambiguation) page for your review. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seen it, commenting there. Kim Bruning 20:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Effect of the Recent Adjustment of the Evolutionism Page

Why is that page discussing usage of a word? Isnt that the purpose of entries in Wiktionary (and disambiguation pages) instead?

I don't see why sections on "Sampling of use of Evolutionism" and the like should constitute a valid encyclopedia article.

What remains afterward is

one or two paragraphs about the use of the term by creationists

this could be moved to the Creation vs. evolution debate page

a few quotes about evidence for evolution used by darwin

this could be moved to Evolution

a dictionary etymology

this should be moved to the Wiktionary

discussion of one or two theories of albiogenesis etc. before Evolution

this should be moved to a new article such as Early non-biblical theories of albiogenesis (but with a better title).

Who agrees? CheeseDreams 01:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I have waited two days now for someone to step forward in support of the above proposal. :) Clearly I disagree on all points, as you can see from the edit history of Evolutionism. :(( I suggest the following:

Let's leave the Evolutionism page with all the decorative VfD tags, Merge tags, Cut tags, Split tags, and Move to Wiktionary tags at the top of the page as they are :) --or feel free to add other similar holiday tags--as long as the "system people" do not object to seeing the Evolutionism page show up in surprising places! :)))
Until New Year's Day 2005, let's all actually read the references cited. I was amazed to read for the first time the totality of Erasmus Darwin's "Temple of Nature" for which I could not find an online link :(( --and I notice the red link on Temple of Nature. I see some of the sources, references, and citations are incomplete, and I will see if I can get some adventuresome Wikipedia editors to complete those sources, references, and citations before New Year's Day 2005. :)
I will pitch in here to help complete some of the outline for the "Evolutionism 1875 to the present" section. By my cursory examination, completing this section would consist mainly of summarizing and linking to existing Main articles: already in Wikipedia. But we shall see. :(
On New Year's Day, let's submit the Evolutionism page to "peer review" and ask everyone to quote and cite the other sources that would remove any remaining POV--in preparation for submitting this page for consideration for "Featured Article" fixes that the Wikipedia community would recommend.

Is that a deal? ---Rednblu | Talk 17:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. I would like to see what other people say. Also see the history of this talk page. At least one other person than the two of us has commented today. CheeseDreams 23:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Usage and context of "evolutionism"

[Is "evolutionism" used by creationists to characterize their opponents?] I believe so. (Pun not intended.) I have never seen the term evolutionism or evolutionist in any other context. It seems to be used to somehow level the playing field, since the discussion between creationists and evolutionists—creationism vs. evolutionism—sounds much better than Creation vs. the theory of evolution, which would sound strictly like religion vs. science. Also using the term theory of creation would never be used by anyone who says that evolution is “only a theory”—and rightly so, since not being a theory in the sense of scientific method would inevitably imply that it must be a theory in the informal sense, meaning speculation. The unfortunate creation science is used [1] (http://www.drdino.com/) but rarely, probably because it sounds like an oxymoron, and feels somehow ironic in its proper context. Personally, I find the usage and genesis of evolutionism (again, pun not intended) quite interesting and I think it would be very important to thoroughly explain if there is going to be an article on evolutionism. In any case, I don’t really mind if people call me an evolutionist, as long as they also remember to call me a gravitationist, electromagnetist, quantum mechanic and special relativity theoretician. Rafał Pocztarski 19:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Should we define evolutionism as just "a theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin"?] I have to disagree. If there is going to be a separate article on evolutionism, it should contain much more than merely a reference to evolution and Darwin. No one would use the terms evolutionism and evolutionist if they meant exactly the same as the theory of evolution and someone who accepts it, respectively. In my opinion the article on evolutionism—if there is going to be one, or a section in some other article otherwise—should explain who tends to use those terms, and in what contexts (see my other comment). E.g. I have never heard anyone calling herself an evolutionist, just like I have never heard anyone describing herself as a gravitationist because she happens to accept the theory of gravitation. Furthermore, there are people who call others “Darwinists” but interestingly no one seems to call anyone “Newtonists” or “Einsteinists.” It seems that “evolutionists” are those who strongly oppose the rejection of evolution by creationists, but it is not the rejection of evolution per se that seems to provoke such strong emotional reactions of those so called “evolutionists” but rather the rejection of the scientific method. Therefore, I would call them “scientists” instead of “evolutionists.” Rafał Pocztarski 20:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whatever the final decision will be on whether to have separate articles or just short sections in already existing articles, I believe that it is important to note who, when, and why uses the terms “evolutionism” and “evolutionists,” for as we can see the fact is that some people do, and usually those who reject the theory of evolution, as a quick Google search for evolutionists (http://www.google.com/search?q=evolutionists) and evolutionism (http://www.google.com/search?q=evolutionism) seems to show very well. The opinion whether it is a good idea to use those words should probably be left to the reader who would have enough informations to base that opinion on some facts. Rafał Pocztarski 02:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I have read what you wrote and I agree with the substance of what you wrote. Well said! ---Rednblu | Talk 02:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree too that Evolutionism is used almost exclusively as a derogatory term, and still do not think it justifies a seperate page, neither for its dictionary definition/etymology (Move to wiktionary) or its use as a derogatory term (move to Evolution vs. creation debate or Creationism, or both). CheeseDreams 19:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Modern evolutionism research

--- Begin references container for quotations and citations to published scholars of evolutionism

Early history of evolutionism

Carneiro describes it this way, "In the seventeenth century, 'evolution' began to be used in English to refer to an orderly sequence of events, particularly one in which the outcome was somehow contained within it from the start." Since the outcome was already contained within every prior stage of the earth, life, and universe, everything would happen as it has without divine intervention. (Carneiro 2003:1). For example, Sir Matthew Hale in 1677 used the term evolution to attack the atheistic atomism of Democritus and his student Epicurus. (Goodrum 2002:212-214). In that attack, Hale summarized the atomist idea that the vibrations and collisions of atoms in the void without divine intervention had formed "Primordial Seeds" (semina) which were the "immediate, primitive, productive Principles of Men, Animals, Birds and Fishes." (Hale 1677:257). According to Hale, the mechanism of the "Primordial Seeds" is an "absurdity" because "it must have potentially at least the whole Systeme of Humane Nature, or at least that Ideal Principle or Configuration thereof, in the evolution whereof the complement and formation of the Humane Nature must consist. . . and all this drawn from a fortuitous coalition of senseless and dead Atoms." (Hale 1677:257, 259) (emphasis added).
"By analyzing the ways scientific and religious factors interacted in the debate over the spontaneous generation of the first humans we will not only make a contribution to the history of seventeenth-century atomism but also link problems and ideas in the physical sciences with those in the biological and anthropological sciences. At the same time this study illustrates the ways in which scientific ideas were shaped by, or needed to respond to, ideas and concerns that had their roots in religion." (Goodrum 2002: 207).
- Hale, M. (1677). The Primitive Origination of Mankind, Considered and Examined According to the Light of Nature (London).
- Goodrum, M.R. (2002). Atomism, atheism, and the spontaneous generation of human beings: The debate over a natural origin of the first humans in seventeenth-century Britain. Journal of the History of Ideas 63 (2), pp. 207-224.

On line link for Paul Elliott, "Erasmus Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and the Origins of the Evolutionary Worldview in British Provincial Scientific Culture, 1770–1850" (History of Science Society) (University of Chicago Press) [2] (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ISIS/journal/issues/v94n1/940101/940101.web.pdf)

Detailed analysis of what evolutionist History of ideas scholars call the "biological evolutionism" of Erasmus Darwin
- Primer, Irwin. (1964). Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature: Progress, evolution, and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Journal of the History of Ideas 25 (1), pp. 58-76.
  - Erasmus Darwin's footnote in his Temple of Nature (1803), pp. 166-67n is analyzed on page 62 of the above (Irwin (1964), p. 62).
  - The reference to Eleusinian Mysteries alludes to the seasonal flowering of life in the spring. That is, the reference to Eleusinian Mysteries in the title of the above article makes an analogy with Erasmus Darwin's sketch in the above footnote of Erasmus Darwin's hypothesis of repeated collapse of the Universe into "one central chaos" with an automatic convergence of earth-like planets from the dust of the crushing collapse, followed by the automatic repopulation of some earth-like planets with life like ours--because of the "immutable laws" innate in "matter."

Evolutionary biology

[There will be some duplication across categories. Duplications will be eliminated in the final assembly. Order of listing is "Most recent first."]

PUBMED
1. Anderson, W. (2004). Natural histories of infectious disease: ecological vision in twentieth-century biomedical science. Osiris 19, pp. 39-61
  - Author's scholarly institution. Department of Medical History and Bioethics, University of Wisconsin Medical School.
  - Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("During the twentieth century, disease ecology emerged as a distinct disciplinary network within infectious diseases research. The key figures were Theobald Smith, F. Macfarlane Burnet, Rene Dubos, and Frank Fenner. They all drew on Darwinian evolutionism to fashion an integrative (but rarely holistic) understanding of disease processes, distinguishing themselves from reductionist 'chemists' and mere 'microbe hunters.'") (emphasis added) (p. 39)
    - Disease ecology. Sample 1999 NIH RFA (http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-TW-00-002.html).
2. Amouroux, R. (2004). "W. Bolsche's book". Freud and German evolutionism in the beginning of the 20th century. Gesnerus 61 (1-2), pp. 24-36 (in French)
  - Author's scholarly institution. Hopital Armand Trousseau, Service d'anesthesie.
  - Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("The task at hand is to prepare the ground for a study of German evolutionism, both popular and scientific, and its ties to psychoanalysis.") (emphasis added) (p. 24) (PUBMED translation of abstract from French into English)
3. Elliott, P. (2003). Erasmus Darwin, Herbert Spencer, and the origins of the evolutionary worldview in British provincial scientific culture, 1770-1780. Isis 94 (1), pp. 1-29. (already cited above and quoted in the current Evolutionism page).
  - Author's scholarly institution. School of Geography, University of Nottingham.
  - Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("Most important, it shows that his [ Herbert Spencer's ] evolutionism was originally stimulated by his association with the Derby philosophical community, for it was through this group--of which his father, who also appears to have espoused a deistic evolutionary theory, was a member--that he was first exposed to progressive Enlightenment social and educational philosophies and to the evolutionary worldview of Erasmus Darwin, the first president of the Derby Philosophical Society.") (emphasis added) (p. 1)
4. . . . Others to follow [Under assembly]

Cultural anthropology

JSTOR search on Anthropology POV
1. [Under assembly]

Sociology

JSTOR search on Sociology POV
1. [Under assembly]

History of ideas

JSTOR search on 1) History and 2) History of science POVs
1. [Under assembly]

Marxist thought

JSTOR search on Economics POVs
1. [Under assembly]

Marxism is concerned with speculative future changes to societies, rather than a description of past changes to the genes and structure of organisms; and as such has nothing directly to do with Evolutionist theories.

Secular Judaism

JSTOR search on Religion, Judaism POVs
1. [Under assembly]

Modern controversies

JSTOR search on Religion, Political science, and Philosophy POVs
1. Owen, J.J. (1999). Church and state in Stanley Fish's antiliberalism. American Political Science Review 93 (4), pp. 911-924.
  - Author's scholarly institution. Boston College.
  - Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ([Stephen L.] Carter (1987) uses the debate between "creationism" and "evolutionism" to argue that the liberal faith is indeed without warrant. The faith in reason, Carter asserts, can claim no epistemological supremacy over any religious faith.") (emphasis added) (p. 913)
2. [Article on art theory]
3. Davis, E.B. (1995). Fundamentalism and folk science between the wars. Religion and American Culture 5 (2), pp. 217-248.
  - Author's scholarly institution. University of Pennsylvania, Mellon Fellow in the Humanities.
  - Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("For all of these reasons, the category "folk science" is an appropriate tool for understanding the history of evolutionism and creationism. Above all, it helps us see why the usual terms "religion" and "science" are inadequate to describe the past encounters: the traditional lines of demarcation between religion and science have often been blurred, if not obliterated. Folk science, as Van Till observes, "provides a standing invitation to the unwary to confuse science and religion . . . ." Nowhere is this more evident than in Rimmer's 1930 debate with Samuel Christian Schmucker (1860-1943), a biologist with a national reputation as a populizer of evolution. This essay tells the story of that debate, sketches the lives and beliefs of the two principal characters, and argues that Rimmer's antievolutionism and Schmucker's evolutionary theism are best understood as competing varieties of folk science.") (emphasis added) (p. 219)
4. Others to follow. [Under assembly]
5. Curtis, R.C. (1986). Are methodologies theories of scientific rationality? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (1), pp. 135-161.
  - Author's scholarly institution. York University, Ontario.
  - Quotation of author illustrating modern use of evolutionism theory. ("[Charles] Darwin was not 'intuitively' following the methodology of one or another of our contemporary historian/philosophers. Rather, he made a critical decision in the late 1830s, to try to satisfy a well-articulated methodology which we now think is in many ways mistaken, the partly Baconian, partly Kantian methodology of his scientific colleague, William Whewell. By accepting Whewellian metascience, initially, as part of the unproblematic background to his scientific problem--the problem of species distribution--Darwin did what was necessary to promote a critical discussion of the relative merits of his own solution, evolutionism, and its main rival, creationism. But eventually this led him into a debate about the merits of Whewellian metascience itself. The result was that after 1860 Darwin gave us good arguments against some of the values which had guided the scientific community until then.") (emphasis added) (p. 137)
    - "The terms “catastrophism” and “uniformitarianism” were introduced in 1837 by William Whewell in his History of the Inductive Sciences to describe the two leading schools of theoretical geology at that time." [3] (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-44)
6. Others to follow. [Under assembly]

--- End references container

VfD debate

The vfd debate related to this article may be found at Talk:Evolutionism/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And may I remind everyone that the summary conclusion of that debate as found on the Talk:Evolutionism/delete (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3AEvolutionism%2Fdelete&diff=0&oldid=7427293) page has been amended and forged by an unauthorized editor. ;) It was a good joke, 8( but I hereby request that 1) either the amender and forger or 2) an authorized editor correct that summary conclusion and restore that summary conclusion to its original, rightful, and authorized statement of "The result of the debate was KEEP". I understand that the tampering with the summary statement was frivolous and was made in good faith. :)) But the record should be accurate, all good jokes and yuks aside! :(( ---Rednblu | Talk 17:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I note from the History file (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Evolutionism/delete&action=history) that as of 15:09, 13 Nov 2004, the VfD record at Talk:Evolutionism/delete was restored to its original, rightful, and authorized statement of "The result of the debate was KEEP". ---Rednblu | Talk 21:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - I also note that the History file on this page says that the above entry was made at 17:05, 13 Nov 2004 ---Rednblu | Talk 21:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And may I remind everyone that it was not a forgery, just a descriptive summary of the other conclusion (see the comment on the edit history), i.e. that this article should be split up into various parts - also see the debate conclusion - where people started changing their votes because of this splitting up proposal. CheeseDreams 18:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No worries, first keep, then go for the next step, like splitting it up, if you insist. Let's discuss that here now! Kim Bruning 19:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For example; This page: Evilgelical Christians has no more a POV title than Evolutionism. Either both titles are removed or both remain. CheeseDreams 11:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evilgelical Christians is not a title but a (perhaps unfortunate) redirect to Fundamentalist Christianity article. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Evilgelical_Christians&redirect=no) [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Fundamentalist_Christianity) I think that “Either both titles are removed or both remain” ultimatum is incorrect no matter what is you personal opinion on either of those articles (or redirect names) and on the deletion thereof. People interested in science (evolution) and those interested in religion (Fundamentalist Christianity) are not exactly the same people, so even if the two issues you present were identical—which they are not—demanding a consistent result of voting from two different sets of people would be forgetting that votes for deletion are not cast by a single group of judges, but by any user interested in a given subject and dispute. Rafał Pocztarski 13:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Secular Creationists? Do they actually exist? CheeseDreams 23:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

“Secular creationists” is an oxymoron so obviously no, they do not actually exist—by definition. That having been clarified, the people interested in debates over scientific articles and those interested in debates over religious ones—as well as people participating in voting regarding the deletion of Evolutionism and Fundamentalist Christianity, respectively—are not the same people nevertheless, as Talk:Evolutionism and Talk:Fundamentalist Christianity—as well as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Evolutionism and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fundamentalist Christianity, for that matter—seem to demonstrate rather well. Rafał Pocztarski 02:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only people who know Evilgelical Christians exists are people who have read Talk:Evolutionism after I mentioned it. As far as I can tell. I only created it to proove a point. CheeseDreams 21:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting! 8)) Let me do some original research :)) on the comparisons you suggest. Nice observation. Nice puzzle. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you are trying to point out that there are no VfD for Fundamentalist Christianity, then yes, that was my point. Please keep the context in mind—it’s related to the “Either both titles are removed or both remain” ultimatum, which I find incorrect even though there are no secular creationists (which was supposedly an argument against my original point). Please also note that I have not casted my vote regarding the deletion of evolutionism, so it was meant as neither argument for deletion, nor a one against it. I have no strong views about a separate article. I only think that it might be important to write about the usage and context of the term evolutionism if we are going to write about it, either on Wikipedia or in the Wiktionary. Rafał Pocztarski 12:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection what soever to usage and context of the term evolutionism as an article title. However, I would strongly recommend that it ought to be in Wiktionary (as is clearly suggested by the phrase "usage and context of the term"). CheeseDreams 21:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Votes to move page title to Usage and context of "evolutionism"

Support

Move. CheeseDreams 21:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Move. It seems I'm new to this hot-button issue, so apologies if I'm repeating others. The fact remains that "evolutionism" is not a belief system/ideology/theory/entity in and of itself. It is a term accentuating a certain point of view concerning the scientific theory of evolution. As such, the sole purpose of the article is to talk about the term and its usage, not the theory. [[User:Limeheadnyc|]] 00:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not so. Within sociology, anthropology, and history of ideas, just for starters, "evolutionism" is theory that definitely is not accentuating a certain point of view about evolutionary biology. I refer you, for example, to Robert Carneiro's Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History. Furthermore, according to Robert Carneiro, the term "evolutionism" is used in anthropology to describe a whole set of theories that include but are not limited to evolutionary biology. What published scholar agrees with what you said? ---Rednblu | Talk 06:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I'll take your comments into consideration and look into it. In the meantime, I advise you to look at WP:DICK. [[User:Limeheadnyc|]] 06:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Object

Keep, the idea is just sabotage. And while were at it, slapping the "move to wiktionary" thing on it is not only absurd but downright childish. ;Bear 06:38, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
Keep, while I have problems with this page the move is anacronistic: "Discussion of usage and context" is implied by "having an encyclopedia article". Why did you move it when there was clearly no concensus? Joe D (t) 12:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The history of a term is perfectly valid for a Wikipedia article. See for example Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. --Fastfission 20:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We don't, however, have anti-choice or anti-life, which are often used by opposing sides. A person who believes in evolution would not, I daresay, characterize him- or herself as a believer in evolutionism. [[User:Limeheadnyc|]] 00:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Evolutionism" is a classification term--like Homo sapiens--to an anthropology or history of ideas scholar. Just because a New Yorker never calls himself a Homo sapiens does not diminish how Homo sapiens the New Yorker is--if you know what Homo sapiens means. ---Rednblu | Talk 07:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I can see why you might be able to argue that the article should be deleted. But that's been voted down, so don't try getting it effectively deleted through some roundabout method. —Simetrical (talk) 23:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Such Nonsense

I tried to nominate this page for deletion and got sent here. There is no such word as "Evolutionism" in Merriam-Webster on-line nor in my 1986 American Heritage Dictionary. All the references on the bottom of the page are to creationist literature, which should be a clue (even to the clueless, such as Creationists) that there is no issue to be discussed here, except if the clueless want to talk to the clueless, for which purpose they ought not to use Wikipedia. The general concept being promoted, I gather, is that people who believe in evolution are following a creed, and the creationists want to tar this creed with other labels like materialism and atheism. This does not demonstrate that people who accept Darwin's theory and its descendents are athiests or materialists; it demonstrates that creationists are unable to understand how a person could accept evolution and worship God! It illustrates the narrowness, the stubbornness of these "crusaders," who have to force everyone into their restrictive channel of thought and belief. Give it up! Let ordinary people live and believe in evolution and religion, or not, withuout trying to squeeze anyone who does not blindly follow you into the procrustean bed of atheism, materialism, and crassness. Pdn 02:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VfD notice inappropriate as it links to the Archive Talk:Evolutionism/delete: "This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP." Changed to Disputed tag so that debate takes place on this talk page. dave souza 11:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rather than deleting a VfD notice, shouldn't you rather fix the link? I doubt VfD would succeed, but it might as well be handled properly. Pdn has the right to nominate a page for deletiion. Guettarda 12:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Keep: this page gives good information on the historical development of "evolutionism" and is usefully linked from the history of evolutionary thought. While the word may not appear in some U.S. dictionaries, it is defined in my copies of The Concise Oxford Dictionary and Chambers Concise 20th Century Dictionary, both of which show "evolution" as having more meanings than "biological evolution". The very first reference at the foot of the page is to Robert Carneiro, a proponent of evolution. Given that Wikipedia is international and that those originally using the term were British, censoring the word because of a current argument in the U.S. would be like putting a VfD notice on Liberalism because "liberal" is misused in current U.S. political debate and similarly has had different meanings over time and in different countries.- dave souza 11:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Remove: This page is nothing more than a woefully biased and totally dishonest political attempt by religious creationists to subvert the reality of evolution advocacy. Evolution is a scientific theory backed up by absolutely overwhelming and exhaustive evidence; it is not a belief in any religious sense of the word, and the motive behind evolution advocacy is scientific, not political. Pages such as this need to be removed if Wikipedia itself is to be taken as a serious source for good and accurate information. Aaarrrggh 17:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV header

It has been five months since CheeseDreams added the POV header, insisting that the term was only used by Creationsits. Clearly this has historically not be the case, as the page well documents. I don't see anybody else clamoring about a POV dispute. Unless anyone objects, I'll remove it. --Fastfission 22:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Church

Church position must have a prominent section IMO, creationism being the main opponent.

BTW I stumbled upon the following claim:

John Paul II wrote a letter to the Pontificial Academy of Sciences in 1997 advising Vatican scientists (and Catholics at large) that the Church doesn’t have a problem with the scientific theory of evolution

Any idea what exactly was this about? Mikkalai 17:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

See Evolution#Evolution_and_religion (plus the Talk archives) and Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. Guettarda 18:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Evolutionism"