Talk:Evolutionism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed redirect

I feel it would be best if we redirected Evolutionism to Evolution. Evolutionism is defined by Merriam-Webster as: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations ; also : the process described by this theory". This article, frankly, seems to be more dedicated to complaining about how creationists use the term than the term itself. It would make much more sense to simply redirect Evolutionism to Evolution, as the terms are synonymous. Rrrr5 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

strong support for this proposal. This article is way too much of an opinion piece; it does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The article is not about evolution. It is about the use of the term evolutionism. It would be quite inappropriate to turn it into a redirect. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is not titled "Use of the term evolutionism," nor "contraversy about the use of the term evolutionism." Neither of these subjects are of sufficient interest to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. They are only of interest to those actively engaged in a silly online debate. This is an article on "Evolutionism," which has a clear definition that does not include any creationist position. Making the entire "Evolutionism" article about the creationist use of the term gives undue weight to the issue. A vast majority of people who find this page are looking for "Evolution," not an attack on creationists. This is why I agree that the article should be renamed or removed, and "Evolutionism" redirect to "Evolution." --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? It traces the use of the term from the 19th century onwards, and only a small part of it is about the recent (mis)use of the word by creationists. There is a clear distinction between evolutionism (in its various meanings and usages) and evolution. Maybe the article as it stands doesn't do a good enough job, but there is certainly a distinct subject here worthy of its own article, as there is (e.g.) in the case of Darwinism - or would you like that turned into a redirect to Charles Darwin? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Snalwibma, some of your comments (e.g., "Have you actually read the article") are inflammatory and nonconstructive. Please remain civil and address the arguments. Further, I think you can agree that your Charles Darwin example is a straw man. Darwinism is a viewpoint popularized by Charles Darwin . Evolutionism is not a viewpoint popularized by Evolution. I think we can agree the analogy does not hold.

As for the substance of your argument, I think you are right: the content relating to the history of the term is important. But is that not redundant with History of Evolutionary Thought? If not, is that not the appropriate place for historical information? Roughly a third of the words in this article relate to the creationism-evolutionism debate. That grossly exaggerates the importance of that information. Even if you are anti-creationist, the very fact that 1/3 of the Evolutionism wiki article argues against the use of creationism in a particular way validates their position. If you think that position is silly, the best thing to do here is to simply ignore it, because that viewpoint does not meet encyclopedic standards, nor does the debate. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended. I thought I was just being direct. No, the Darwin(ism) parallel is not a straw man. Of course the relationship between Darwin and Darwinism is different from that between evolution and evolutionism, but in each case there is clear distinction between xxx and xxxism, and both deserve articles. Evolutionism is a concept that shows a fascinating shift in meaning and connotation over a period of 150 years or so, and it is worth teasing out in a Wikipedia article. Perhaps the present article does devote too much space to a current American spat, but that is a reason to make the article better, not to eliminate it. But does it "argue against" creationism? I rather thought it was trying to describe the use of the term "evolutionism". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets look at the content of this article: Of the seven referenced statements in this article, two are definitional (1 and 3). Five relate to the creationism-evolutionism debate. (2) is from AllAboutGod.com, (4) through (7) are used to support statements about creationists. As you say, there is some interesting content that is not related to the creationism-evolutionism debate. References to Lamarckism, other "forms" of evolution (e.g., social evolution), and the pre-scientific comparison to phrenology are examples of interesting though largely unreferenced content. But the article on History of evolutionary thought does an infinitely better job at discussing of discussing the history. The only remaining content is the first paragraph of the first section. As it is, that first paragraph is essentially a disambiguation page; it just lists all the ways in which the term evolution is used, and points viewers to those articles.

If you discount the creationist-evolutionist debate and the disambiguation information, what remains? Which sentence(s) do you think really need to be kept? --Thesoxlost (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah - now you are suggesting a redirect to History of evolutionary thought. That is very different from what you first proposed, and sounds far more sensible. Perhaps not a bad idea, in fact. But I have no time to give it a thorough review just now. In any case, I think we should wait and see if anyone else chips in to this discussion. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A bad idea, as far as I'm concerned. This covers a commonly used and misused term, with a range of meanings which cover a much more specific topic than the entire history of evolutionary thought. The principle is that readers shouldn't be surprised by what the redirect brings up, and that article would be confusing to them. Improvements to the article would be a good idea, as always. . dave souza, talk 11:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support redirect to History of evolutionary thought. If this article is supposed to be about the term itself, it certainly isn't clear as written. Right now it just seems like an odd content fork of evolution. If nothing else, this article should make it clear why it's a separate article, and it doesn't as far as I can tell. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• No Evolutionism is a cultural term (as best as I can tell) that has a historical usage and a current pejorative usage. If we redirect to an article that does not discuss that in detail, the article might be recreated anyways. I'm trying to figure out why we are even considering a redirect? The article is very notable and is necessary. This article is a subset of the science-faith debate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Orange, then perhaps the content should be retained, but moved to the Creation-Evolution contraversy where it is directly relevant. No dictionary or encyclopedia defines "evolutionism" in terms of the creationist debate. That fringe usage should not be given undue weight. --Thesoxlost (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: the M-W definition is no longer current. 'Evolutionism'/'Evolutionary' is now used by creationists to refer to the scientific consensus on a wide range of fields, often wholly unrelated to biological evolution. It's old meaning is all but superseded. This would therefore be like redirecting 'Gay' to 'Happy'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just combine portions of this article with the article on evolution. Maybe have a separate section and if gets to be too much, maybe seperate the history of evolution from the process itself.Mmallico (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Evolution is a main article covering as concisely as possible a large range of topics, each of which has its own dedicated article. While our target size in the past has been set at 32kb, the evolution article is currently at 159 kilobytes so we don't want it to get any larger. See Wikipedia:Article size for discussion of size, and WP:SUMMARY for an outline of the process of moving detail into sub-articles. This article covers a small subset of the topic area. . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Newbie Question/suggestion

If i understand this all correctly, evolutionism refers to two separate things: 1. A sort of lamarkian evolution through inheritance of acquired characteristics, believed in the 19th century. And 2. A coinage used by creationists to make it appear their belief system is on equal footing with the scientific theory of evolution. Do i have this right? If so, i think this distinction could be made a lot clearer in the current intro. If i've misunderstood completely, feel free to ignore/flame at will.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got it perfectly. The term was perfectly useful say 50 years ago, but over the last 20-30 years it's been hijacked by the creationists to give the implication that you "believe" in evolution. In reality, we accept the scientific theory of evolution based on the wealth of scientific research. So over the past few months, creationists have been trying to corrupt this article to imply that 1 and 2 are the same. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course you believe in evolution the same way you believe in atomic theory and yet you don't have a problem with atomist so I would suggest that you believe atomist is a creationist conspiracy against scientists to RUIN ATOMIC THEORY and belittle scientists OR you should stop with the claims that evolutionist is a conspiracy by creationists to belittle people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Atomist is clearly an outdated term which ain't in scientific use these days. Much like evolutionist, though from the definition at the head of the article atomism is about as up to date as Lamarckism. . . dave souza, talk 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What about scientist? Is scientist an oudated term? Is it an attempt to belittle people by creationists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but as far as i know "scientist" remains a word in current usage and is a good general descriptor for evolutionary biologists, physicists and the like. Why do you ask?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously so is "evolutionist" otherwise there would not be an article on it here in the wiki, thus you perhaps support the view that this article is in criteria for speedy deletion. If evolutionist is a real word that's used in the vocabulary of the english language, which I do believe it is, it's used by "creationists" and "evolutionists" to make a particular reference. Since evolutionist is a real word which I think at least most people can agree on. "You can't speak for anyone else"... and indeed, neither can the author of the article as it currently stands. "Some creationists"... "do thusly".. Indeed, some atheists and some scientists, "Some scientists think that we should kill all theists and that it would be better if they were never born!" I'm sure there are some scientists even if its only 500 out of 1 million, think these things, therefore I wish to have those views presented in the article, because "some scientists" think so.... not that there's any evidence either way but then there is no evidence that "some creatinionists" used the word evolutionist in a malicious way, which is also an opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that rant violates WP:NOTAFORUM. Time to end this discussion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone saying that creationists use a word in a particular way automatically violates WP:NOTAFORUM the webpage itself violates it. What i've gathered is this: Facts don't matter, opinions do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Statements verified with reliable sources matter. "Facts", "truth", "opinion" are all irrelevant. You are making statements that cannot be backed up by anything, so you are pontificating rather than adding to the article. That violates WP:NOTAFORUM. Now, learn to sign your edits, provide reliable sources that verify your statements, and you will be considered a useful contributor to this article. Otherwise, you're just ranting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know theres no rule stating you HAVE to sign your articles. In lue of not signing your IP will be used automatically. You're welcome.

Annoying username (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing revert/re-revert

Strongly support the version added by Orange Marlin.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Snalwibma's Reversions

This article is poor and un-encyclopedic. The article needs to include factual statements that are concretely supported by references and fits wiki standards (such as the elimination of weasel words). Creationists are a heterogeneous group; you can't say "Creationists have an agenda to refute evolutionism" anymore than you can say "evolutionists have an agenda to refute creationism," because both are sweeping generalizations.

The references added make clear specific instances of Creationist groups using the term in ridiculous ways. The groups that use the term in this way need to be specified, instead of using weasel words such as "Creationists" or "Some creationists," which refers to some vague, ill-specified set of people. My changes were pretty clearly good-faith efforts to improve the article by eliminating weasel words and making sure that the statements made are fully supported by the reference. Snalwibma has not justified his reversion of my edits, nor did he attempt to improve the article by coming to an agreement. He simply reverted, in poor WP:etiquette. The page cannot stand as is; it needs to be improved. I'd urge those of you, such as Snalwibma, who feel strongly about making a strong statement about Creationist intentions, to provide solid references and improve the article by attempting to find agreement. I'm reverting Snalwibma's reversion, to my most recent attempt to find agreement. I don't think he will be happy with that, so I encourage him (and any others) to attempt a synthesis. --Thesoxlost (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To expand on my edit summary: I reverted Thesoxlost's version (a) because it twice slipped in the term evolutionism where the correct term would be evolution or evolutionary theory ("Some creationists ... challenge evolutionism ..." and "evolutionism is portrayed as a theory ..."); and (b) because it deleted the useful sentence "The basis of this argument is to establish that the creation-evolution controversy is essentially one of interpretation of evidence...". Happy now? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support snalwibma's reasoning.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course I'm happy now. This is how wikipedia works. You can't come to agreements and improve articles if you don't justify your changes. Now I can make my changes with your concerns in mind, or argue with specific points. I'll do so when I have a chance. --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Papal magisterium

Snalwibma said Humani Generis discussed evolution, not evolutionism. Fair enough. But it seems fair to say that Pascendi did talk about evolutionism, albeit in a very critical way. A good read BTW. ADM (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you source this accurately? I think it helps the article considerably, but not being a religious scholar, I wouldn't know where to get that information. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC

I just read the pascendi. No "evolutionism" sighted by me.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I had in mind paragraphs 13 and 26, where the word evolution is used in a purely philosophical sense, refering to a peculiar theory in metaphysics, akin to vitalism and immanentism. ADM (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds intriguing and plausible, but an awful lot like original research. I don't know how we can define that what the Pope meant when he said "Evolution" was "Evolutionism." He has a pretty clear critique, and his spin does seem to be going in an "Evolutionism" direction, but it strikes me as a stretch to out and out say that's what he meant.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(←) I am not convinced by the addition of "Evolutionism as a socio-political philosophy was heavily criticized in Pope Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, and became widely known as modernism." I stand by my opinion that there is no distinction between evolution and evolutionism in this papal source, and that it was discussing evolution, not evolutionism. And where on earth is the source for the statement that evolutionism "became known as modernism"? It would be interesting and useful to trace the concept of evolutionism in the thinking of the Roman Catholic Church, but it needs better evidence than this. In terms of the source in question, it does refer to evolution as a "doctrine", and sees it as part of "modernism", but that seems to be about all. At the least, I think the added sentence needs radical rewriting, to more accurately reflect what the source actually says. Or (better, I think) it should be removed altogether from this section, since it is nothing to do with development of usage [of the term "evolutionism"]. It would do better as an additional comment in the lead, alongside the point about evolutionism being used to suggest that evolution is a belief system rather than a science. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's quite simple, really. The Pope didn't use the word "evolutionism;" our opinions about what he "meant" rather than what he said can't be used.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree.

BTW, the English and Italian versions don't fully match -- the English xlation isn't wholly accurate: to wit, why is e (and) translated as "nay". So much for infallibility.  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, only items from John XXIII forward are available in Latin. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent)

So, nothing here seems to support Snalwibma's WP:OR insertion... Spotfixer (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm - you mean ADM's insertion! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer, you seem to have gotten the sense of the above completely upside down. To be clear: If one reads the encyclical, one finds that the word "evolutionism" isn't used once, nor is such claimed in that citation.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the link that this claim is cited to is (i) broken & (ii) from its URL not likely to be WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tracking it down, AD2000 is a Traditionalist Catholic magazine founded by B. A. Santamaria, so should probably be considered an extremist source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed redirect to History of evolutionary thought

As many have commented, this article is the strange bastard child of the history of the use of the term "Evolutionism" from a philosophical to a scientific meaning; and a newsgroup argument about the "proper" use and implications of the word Evolutionism with emphasis on the significance of being an "ism".

It has been argued previously that something needs to be done to (1) disentangle the historical information from the creationism-evolutionism debate; and (2) to move implicit arguments about the significance of being an "ism", and how the term is used by a small minority to the page where this information is most directly relevant.

Previously a redirect to Evolution was proposed and discussed. It emerged from the discussion that history of evolutionary thought would be a better redirect. Since, no major complaints have been made against this proposed move. So I wanted to push the issue: there are a number of editors who hang out here on the fringe of WP. Would you support or reject a proposal to:

1) Move historical information to History of evolutionary thought 2) Move creationism-evolutionism controversy information to creationism-evolutionism controversy 3) Redirect Evolutionism to History of evolutionary thought

I'll throw in my initial support: disentangling these two disparate issues and moving them to more appropriate articles would improve WP. --Thesoxlost (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral. The chief problem with this article is that it attempts to address two or more different usages of the term. Only one such usage is confined to the creation-evolution controversy. It is possible that relevant details of this article could be to history of evolutionary thought as you suggest, and what remains mentioned (if suitable) in creation-evolution controversy. My support would probably depend on how the changes were implemented. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  Comment I see what you're trying to do, but the problem is that Evolutionism is a popular term used by Creationists today and used 100 years ago to describe the study of Evolution. So, if someone typed the term into the Wikipedia search they'd either get no article at all, or a redirect. So where would we redirect evolutionism? To the History of evolutionary thought? With that, it would end up inside a rather large featured article. If it redirects to the Creation evolution controversy, then it would be lost in a rather large article. We merge articles when the current on can't stand on its own. In this case, it can, and it would be difficult to redirect. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose And, actually, since we don't vote on things here, we come to consensus, this "vote" is irrelevant. Evolutionism is a creationist pejorative term, and it belongs nowhere else. Please stop this tendentious editing by continuing to push a point that completely lacks any support. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Evolutionism certainly has links both to History of evolutionary thought and to Creation-evolution controversy, but it is a topic in its own right, and will be lost if subsumed within those two. The article as it stands is not perfect (it probably needs more on the historical uses of the term), but it is certainly worth having. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as a topic in its own right. The term for the movement and the more recent usage of the term require clear coverage, not a redirect which would confuse readers. Also oppose merging this informating into existing large articles which if anything should split off such detail into a sub-article – this one. . dave souza, talk 10:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Evolutionism has both a historical context and a current definition, the latter of which is a pejorative term used by present-day advocates of (pardon my "isms" here) creationism and biblical literalism. Although the term is obsolete in mainstream academia, it remains in fairly wide use in bibliical apologetics and in distinct arenas of religiously oriented socio-political discourse, most conspicuously among religious advocates who attempt to portray "science" essentially as a competing religious view rather than as the well developed and always growing body of empirically testable knowledge, of which evolution is an aspect that is presently beyond dispute in the scientific community. The links to History of evolutionary thought and the Creation-evolution controversy are quite adequate to set the article in proper perspective for the reader. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose creation of coatracks. "Evolutionism" is best discussed at Evolutionism.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: the current meaning of the word is only very loosely related to the History of evolutionary thought, so to redirect it there would be misleading. An argument might be made for turning it into a dab page linking to information on the two separate meanings elsewhere -- but such an idea would require closer scrutiny before it could be considered viable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per OM, Bali and Hrafn. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest reading Evolutionism in cultural anthropology: a critical history By Robert Léonard Carneiro especially the "The Early History of Evolutionism" chapter as it explains the changing definition of both Evolution and Evolutionism from the 17th century to Spencer in 1862 and the uses both terms had and have in cultural and social sciences in the 19th century.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk.Origins Archive

concerning:

"Louann Miller. "The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: July 2003". http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul03.html. Retrieved 2008-12-05."

This particular T.O archive source is not a typical T.O article with references. Rather it consists of quotes from posts on the the T.O bulletin board, which is a type of blog that primarily consists of off-the-cuff responses with no references noted. Most articles from the T.O archive are considered reliable because they are usually referenced with sources to back up the article. But this particular page comes from a sourceless blog. That's why I question the reliability. It doesn't seem logical to me that just because a quote from a blog appears in the T.O Archive then it must automatically be reliable. Blogs are considered unreliable, even second hand. MTDinoHunter (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Blogs are not reliable sources... WebEdHC (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The only exception I cant think of would be a blog what fall under WP:SPS and none of these seem to fill that criteria.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What creationists think doesn't make it true

This last sentence in the paragraph, while probably true, does not have a source to prove it true.

"Creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in order to suggest that the theory of evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate."

That is why I found a statement "from the horses mouth", from creationists themselves, which proves the sentence true (actually not just the last sentence but the entire paragraph). I.e.:

"This is well illustrated by Dr. John N. Moore, Professor Emeritus of Natural Sciences, Michigan State University writing on Answers in Genesis, "believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one’s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past.""

Your objection to the use of this source is because it is not a reliable source for "the state of science." But this paragraph is not about the state of science as understood by typical scientists, but about what creationists think is the conflict between evolution and creation. I'm not trying to prove the creationists right. Rather, this quote simply proves how creationists think that evolution and creation are "equal in a philosophical debate." This does not prove them correct. It seems to me that quoting directly from creationists to undermine their position is much more effective than quoting from their enemies. I suggest the following revision:

"In fact, creationists admit that, "believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one’s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past." Thus, they undermine their position in the realm of science."

--WebEdHC (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is perfectly valid and helpful to use their own words against them. 8teenfourT4 (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph needs a source to support its assertions, correct as they may be. And this source certainly says exactly what the first part of the paragraph says creationists think. I say this is a valid use of an otherwise questionable source. This is not about what science really is, but about what creationists think science is. MTDinoHunter (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Can a scientist be a creationist?

I have removed the following statement: To say someone is a scientist implies evolutionary views. This can be falsified, I think. It is conceivable that someone is clearly a scientist - having a PhD from a respectable university, doing research, publishing articles, presenting on scientific conferences, doing peer review, having a professorate, etc - and also has creationist opinions. Although such people will be a small minority, I think still many instances can be found, especially in areas that are not directly related to evolutionary theory, like mathematics or economy. Some may argue that it is not scientific to reject evolutionary theory, but having opinions that are not scientific does not mean that you cannot be a scientist - otherwise no real scientist will be left. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Without arguing for or against the claim you pose, for something to appear in Wikipedia it has to be verifiable. The statement and sources you removed paraphrase a reliable source,[1] which concludes that "to say a person is a scientist encompasses the fact that he or she is an evolutionist. In scientific circles the term is redundant and is, therefore, never used." There's more in that source article. Feel free to propose better wording based on the same source, or propose an equally reputable source which supports any alternative phrasing. . . dave souza, talk 17:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So, on Wikipedia it does not make sense to challenge claims that have a source? Nevertheless, I'll give it a try using Wikipedia's guidelines.

WP:V also says that sources that are promotional in nature are questionable. The source (NCSE) claims to be dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out. Thus, it clearly has promotional intentions. So your claim that the source is reliable can be doubted.

You ask for an equally reputable source, maybe this is one? ;) It gives names of modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation. So that's my source for the claim I pose...

Looking forward to your response, kind regards, 132.229.117.120 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The NCSE is dedicated to promoting the clear majority scientific view, AiG is dedicated to promoting what Wikipedia includes as pseudoscience, and a better source is needed. . . dave souza, talk 19:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

...and Wikipedia is dedicated to promoting a neutral point of view. A better source is needed to maintain the claim that "To say someone is a scientist implies evolutionary views." 132.229.117.120 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

...To be serious now: I think we both subscribe Wikipedia's principles. But apparently we have different interpretations or something like that. So can we find some more common ground to come to an agreement? For example, I can agree with the previous sentence: In the modern scientific community the term is an anachronism and is considered redundant as the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, but I think that the disputed sentence pushes the point too far. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference is reliable and the point made is reasonable. If we were discussing a mathematical proof, the word "implies" may be too strong, but the article is about a term that is used by creationists or others who are unfamiliar with the relevant science, and in that context the sourced statement is accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there are enough people that keep shouting that everything is reliable and reasonable and accurate, without giving any underpinning and without seeking consensus, then for me the battle is lost. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That just the way it is here on WP concerning anything Creationary. What Creationists really say and think is not allowed because a priori they are wacko so no creationary sources are allowed. The only sources that are reliable are anti-creationary sources. These editors are so biased and so blind it is impossible for reality to raise it's head. No one here is interested in truth, just reliable sources, but only those reliable sources which agree with the beliefs of the majority of editors. This is prejudice and bigotry of the highest order!!!! Trabucogold (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Rehevkor ✉ 15:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so the mistake was that I mentioned a creationist source (although just for fun)? I thought the opinion of an "anonymous" editor doesn't count for consensus... 132.229.117.120 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is quite clear on this: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."(sic) Reliable sources show creationism to fall under WP:fringe. It doesn't help when some Creationists paint a conspiracy picture that falls somewhere between Jack T. Chick and the guy hiding in his basement in fear of the black helicopters piloted by Grey aliens who are lead by Elvis and call Area 52 home in terms of rationally.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack T. Chick? Never heard of him until your post! Do you realize you've replied to a 14 month old thread?  :) And wow, did you hit all of the high points of great National Enquirer fantasies in one sentence! Impressive! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary

This article seems to be about a word. That seems like a violation of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda term

It's used by theists to attack atheists. It's a scientific area that doesn't have inherently any "believers" and any "-ism"s. This article name should be "the use of the word evolutionism". --Athinker (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Evolution=belief?

OK, some obviously theist users (or an user with multiple accounts) insist on labeling evolutionism as being a belief, in the first sentence of the leading section of the article.

The belief was extended to include cultural evolution and social evolution - seriously? :)) :| While this is obviously vandalism, I'll accept a sentence like "Theists claim that evolutionism is a belief" or even an entire properly referenced paragraph with why they do so but not in the leading section. If you'll further try to impose religious points of view on scientific concepts I will find my self forced to report the situation. And please, don't try to argue to me why it is or isn't a belief... --ANDROBETA 11:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Evolution="that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves"? -- I DON'T THINK SO!

"...that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves" is a belief, and one without any real scientific basis. It in no way follows from the theory of evolution. And I'd thank you not to make wildly speculative and wildly inaccurate assumptions about editors based upon the mere fact that they reverted an edit of yours -- it is a violation of both WP:TALK ("Comment on content, not on the contributor") & WP:AGF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Yup" says another of those multiple accounts. Evolutionism is a rather negative outdated reference to "believers" in often erroneous concepts of evolution from the 19th century. Vsmith (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So... let us clear up some things. Evolutionism is not a theory itself, it's the ensemble of scientific facts, theories, hypotheses, speculations, that are based on the concept of biological evolution. That's why it's an "ism". Even though the various concepts of evolutionism are based on scientific research, it does not automatically mean that they are all true and no one claims so.

"[...] that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves" looks like a planted phrase which was changed to "[...] that species of organisms adapt to their environment over time" by 124.187.129.42, but it looks like it's preferred a definition on which it can be argued about. However, whether if the current definition is right or wrong, you cannot describe it as being a belief. The incorrectness of a hypothesis does not make it into a belief. A belief is the acceptance of a claim without requiring any evidence whatsoever, which is obviously not the case here.

I am not making assumptions based upon the mere fact that someone reverted an edit of mine, I am making assumptions upon the fact that someone insists in describing a scientific concept through a well known revengeful religious view, which can obviously only result in an already overdiscussed conflict. I did not know that the vast majority of the scientific community describes evolutionism as a belief, if they do so you can easily provide the sources. Until then the "belief" definition has no place in the leading section. I hope you'll undo the revert as soon as possible to avoid further conflict. --ANDROBETA 16:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I don't agree. I guess I'm one of the "multiple accounts". Evolutionism, in its 18th Century understanding, is a belief. Sorry. Evolutionism, in the 21st century, is merely a pejorative used by certain creationists to make it appear to be a belief, so the word has no real usefulness today.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for: Evolutionism is not a theory itself, it's the ensemble of scientific facts, theories, hypotheses, speculations, that are based on the concept of biological evolution. That's why it's an "ism". Always willing to learn, as that is not my understanding of the "-ism" suffix. Vsmith (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll hold my breath waiting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@Androbeta: Good intentions are great, but you have crossed a lot of lines in a very short time. The fundamental problem appears to be a complete confusion about the topic: "evolutionism" is only very vaguely connected with "evolution": the latter is science, the former was an unjustified belief and is now a widely misused term. Sorry that is confusing, but if you had stopped to ask, it could have been quickly explained. Clearly you have no idea about Wikipedia's standard procedures, so let me briefly mention that WP:VAND has a very strict definition of "vandalism", and repeatedly using that label for good faith edits will bring trouble. Also, your suggestions of sockpuppetry are so absurd in this case that the only consequence will be laughter, but in other situations you must not comment on editors except (a) with evidence, and (b) at a suitable noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionism and evolutionist(s) are terms some believers in evolution themselves' use. Richard Dawkins for example uses the term evolutionist throughout his works and self labels himself as one as opposed to being a creationist (i.e a believer in creationism). I only presume there is an agenda here by a minority of evolutionists to get these terms removed as they want to falsely present their theory as a proven fact (when it isn't). Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, AP, at the recent Darwinist Meeting, where we sacrificed a couple of Xtian virgins, we discussed this article and how to remove it from Wikipedia, because, as you know, we spend half our living hours worried about Wikipedia. Oh, wait, I'm wrong. We don't. Dawkins does use the term, but a lot less than he has in the past, and, if I really gave a shit about it, I would dig up the Youtube video where he discusses the word, and how it is pejorative. Nevertheless, Dawkins, obviously an atheist, could never be branded as considering evolution as a religion, despite how much the Xtian community tries. And the Theory of Evolution is a fact, well supported by literally thousands of peer-reviewed articles. Creationism has no peer-reviewed articles. In the world of sports, that would be a wipeout. But one more thing. Wikipedia isn't the place to rant about your beliefs. If you have some evidence that Evolution is not a fact, this isn't the place to bring it. I would suggest publishing it in Nature. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done for exposing yourself as incredibly biased and emotional (even swearing) on the topic of origins. I thought wikipedia's policy was for posters to be neutral on these things? Not sure why militant evolutionist cranks are allowed to post here, you guys are not neutral. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(i) Wikipedia has no policy on the personal views of its editors. (ii) Wikipedia's policy on its articles is that they should be proportionate to the prominence with which views are expressed in reliable sources. (iii) With respect to "evolutionism", this means reflecting that the term is largely used (a) for archaic (and largely pre-Darwinian) views of evolution & (b) as a creationist pejorative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, evolutionism in it's 19th century acceptance is a scientific concept, evolutionism before that may be described as a philosophical concept, presumption, speculation, but by no means evolutionism was ever a belief in the sense of religious phenomena, which is what those users are trying to get through that formulation. While you may say that you belive that a certain something is true/real, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are holding a belief, in the sense of faith, in that certain something, but merely that you consider that there is a rather high probability for that something to be true/real. I remind you that this article is not primarily about the usage of the word evolutionism in modern English, but about the topic of evolutionism from a global point of view, from which the usage of some religious community of the term is rather irrelevant. As if evolutionism and creationism were the only -isms or all the other -isms were religions... Who knows, they may also use the word "smart" as a pejorative :)

Vsmith, as a matter of fact, I do:

• NODEX: 1) Philosophic or scientific doctrine based on the idea of evolution. 2) Ensemble of theories that explain the mechanism of the evolution of beings.
• -Ologies & -Isms: a principle or theory of evolution.

Though I didn't even had to have one as I didn't proposed that definition to be introduced in the article, I just wanted the removal of the religiously misleading term "belief".

Johnuniq, "evolutionism" is only very vaguely connected with "evolution" - complete nonsense. Here are some more definitions:

• American Heritage Dictionary: A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
• dictionnaire.sensagent: 1.(biologie) théorie qui cherche à expliquer l'évolution des espèces au cours des temps.

Believe me, I can recognize good faith when I see it ;) --ANDROBETA 17:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You're using an online dictionary as your source. Hehehehehehe. Hahahahahahaha. Hehehehehehe. Fuck me with a 10 foot pole, I think I broke a rib. Call me when you have a real source from a large number of evolutionary biologists who call themselves anything other than an evolutionary biologist. Seriously. I'll be waiting. The obvious point here is that BAD FAITH editors are trying to make this seem like it's standard terminology for evolutionary biologists. It isn't. Since we can't prove the negative, then the assertion that it actually means something today requires a large number of reliable sources, and online dictionaries don't count. I believe that the Oxford English Dictionary, which is THE source for words in the English Language states it quite differently, but that requires research on the part of certain editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, here's what the creationists say about evolutionism: Evolutionism: sometimes called Total Evolutionism or transformism; belief in agnostic or atheistic Evolution; Evolutionism generally teaches that the creatures of today gradually developed into existence through billions of years of natural processes, and that all present life has descended from one (or a few) original forms(s). Trying to define evolution as a religion. Ooops. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, note how biologists who believe in evolution are evolutionary biologists, not just biologists. This is because evolution is a worldview not a scientific fact. Also many evolutionary biologists still call themselves evolutionists, if you've ever seen a creation vs. evolution debate in the last 10 years the evolutionists always start by claiming they are the evolutionists who believe in the evolution worldview, theory or viewpoint on origins etc. There is a difference though between evolutionary biologists in the real world and the cyber-space "internet scientists", the latter claim evolution is 100% fact just to solely wind up creationists or people with different viewpoints while most evolutionists in the real world admit evolution is just a worldview or theory which can be falsified. Orangemarlin is clearly one of these "internet scientist" so don't take his posts seriously, he's just here to wind other users up or to provoke a reaction (hence all the swearing and immoral language). Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

While some amusement is appreciated, it is necessary to remind everyone about WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM. This page is not a place for people to express their personal views about anything. If anyone has a suggestion on how to improve the article, please speak up (without violating standard procedures as outlined above). Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If this were the only place AP was using as his personal forum to state nonscientific nonsense, I would be much more tolerant. But then again, see Talk:Objections to evolution. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW AP, even my left nutsack has an advanced degree. If you're going to engage in personal attacks about the educational level of editors, you should get your facts straight. My language is perfectly fucking fine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I don't know about the French link, but all the other ones are printed dictionaries available online. As far as I know, English doesn't have an international normative institution accepted by all English speaking countries, there are only several more or less influential institutions that specify often different and sometimes contradictory norms. So the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't have any superior authority over other top dictionaries of the English language (unless it was the dictionary of the institution universally recognized as the central normative institution for English). But if you claim that this dictionary has a religiously oriented definition for the term compared to all the other dictionaries in different languages I consulted online, then you are free to scan a copy of the page with the word and upload it somewhere, for a limited time, to prove it. Dictionaries are generally high reliable sources, lexicographers consult with the experts of the different fields when writing them, not with minoritary groups. However, evolutionism is not an English only specific term but it's present in probably every European language (and not only). "Evolutionary biologist" and "evolutionist" are not the same thing, being an evolutionist doesn't mean that you are automatically a evolutionary biologist too; while the first is a profession that requires superior studies in that domain, the second is just the advocacy of the evolution concept.

Johnuniq, as I stated above, the term "belief" must be removed from the definition in the leading section as it misleads to religious connotations. The phrase "The belief was extended to include cultural evolution and social evolution" implies that cultural evolution and social evolution are also "beliefs", and sounds kind of ridiculous. Additionally, I think that limiting the article to biological evolution is a narrow point of view. It should begin like "Evolutionism is a philosophic and scientific concept based on the idea of evolution, by which the universe, beings, society etc. are subject of a continuous process of historical development and are analized from the point of view of this development (definition synthesized from other online definitions). The concept arised in biology and extended to various other fields." And then the article should be developed on how evolution is approached in the different domains, but this would require a lot of time which I admit I do not have, but I "believe" that this would be the right path for the article. --ANDROBETA 11:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

ANDROBETA: you are conflating "belief" with "religious belief" -- not all beliefs are religious (for example belief in the Loch Ness monster). In this context, a "belief" is an poorly-substantiated-but-firmly-held idea -- specifically the ideas "that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves" (which never had any scientific basis, AFAIK) and "that changes are progressive and arise through inheritance of acquired characters" (which only ever had very limited and speculative scientific basis). I would also question whether "evolutionism" is a single concept, or that the philosophical conceptualisations of it have much in common with the scientific ones -- it seems to be all too often a grab-bag of tenuously-related (and all-too-often only tenuously-tied to evidence) ideas. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, "you are conflating "belief" with "religious belief" -- not all beliefs are religious", that is what I explained in some of my previous comments, my point is that the word "belief" is highly involved in anti-evolution debates by religious groups (which abuse the multiple connotations of the word) to mislead the public opinion into believing that evolutionism has a religious nature and is equivalent to creationism, that is why the term must be replaced with less ambiguous ones. I must say that a belief is not necessarily a firmly held idea but merely a speculation or presumption, the expression of a possibility: "I believe (think) that I'll finish it by tomorrow". Your understanding of the term is breaking WP:LABEL, which is basically the whole point here.

"that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves, and that changes are progressive and arise through inheritance of acquired characters, as in Lamarckism" is a very specifically and narrow-view phrase (which should be removed). While evolution today is an indisputable fact, the means by which it happens are still disputable. What this phrase does is mentioning some of the proposed means by which it happens and attaches them to the word "evolutionism" to manipulate into thinking that the whole ensemble of scientific facts and theories that it comprises are a bunch of speculations with no real basis whatsoever (though I do not know what is the scientific support for the content of the current definition, you may be wrong). That is why I proposed a less disputable introduction, the details may be added subsequently, properly referenced, in the body of the article. --ANDROBETA 15:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The source notes a specific historical usage of the term, your disagreement appears to be unsourced. This is a historical usage, and reputable historians are more appropriate as sources examining this past implication of the term. Your proposal that "the means by which it happens are still disputable" is unsouced and lacks credence. . . dave souza, talk 16:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave souza, "The source notes a specific historical usage of the term" - and that is exactly what this article should not be about, especially the leading section. Also, disputed assertions must have multiple sources and should preferably be directly verifiable online. From your comment I understand that you didn't really read my comments or you don't really know what I'm talking about here, sorry. --ANDROBETA 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Androbeta....see WP:AGF. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposals for change

So I suppose we all agree (more or less) and understand that the change needs to be done? --ANDROBETA 18:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What change? The point that evolutionism is used to refer to 19th century models of progressive evolution is well founded. For example, Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: the history of an idea. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 275. ISBN 0-520-23693-9. states "The dominant form of late-nineteenth-century thought was progress, and evolutionism became popular because it was perceived as a scientific explanation of this broader principle."

However, citation 3 is to # ^ "Evolutionism". AllAboutGOD.com, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80949. 2002–2008. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/evolutionism.htm. Retrieved 2008-12-05, a very questionable source about the topic as a whole, and only really useful as an example of creationist use of the term when attacking the modern science of evolution in its various meanings. Citation 4 uses the term but has no explanation about the usage, it appears to be a primary source being used for original research. So, best to remove these sources and seek a reliable secondary source for the aspects previously cited to these dubious sources. . . dave souza, talk 22:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't "understand the change that needs to be done". And yes, I did read the discussion. Guettarda (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I also don't believe that a well articulated and substantiated argument for a change has been made. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I read and participated in the conversation. I saw nothing convincing. Evolutionism is a creationist term (today). Words change in meaning over the centuries. I am certain evolutionism made sense in 1850, it has now been hijacked by the Behe's and Dembski's of the world to fit their needs. I am always amused by strict literalists who take words written centuries ago and for some reason don't understand that language evolves. Oh, they don't like "evolve". Oh well. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Like the term "creationism" itself, the term "evolutionism" has been hijacked by the current version of biblical fundamentalists. However, as a respected academic dealing with the history of early evolutionary science, Bowler was still using the term in 2009. Perhaps insensitive to the anti-science ideological wars of the U.S. but still something we should explain simply in this article, as well as showing the creationist misuse of the term. Which the article currently does reasonably well, but as stated above a couple of the sources are not good. . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is a train wreck. It fails to distinguish between the process and the method of that process.

"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" (Moran, Laurence (1993) "What is Evolution?")

Evolution is nothing more than a process that fits three criteria:

1) A form of change happens

2) The change is inheritable

3) The change is passed on to succeding generations

(summation of The Philosophies Behind the various theories of origins)

Note that the criteria say NOTHING about the method of the change or how the change comes about nor do they say anything about the direction of that change. As long as it meets these three criteria it IS Evolution.

The Bible itself talks about what is known as Regressive Evolution or fall from perfection (Genesis 3:14-19, Genesis 6:3, and Genesis 9:1-5 for example) It is not Darwinian evolution but it is a type of EVOLUTION

It is away past time to nix this nonsense that claims Evolution = Darwin because

1) it is not true (Three belief systems about the origin of life (abiogenesis) and the development of species (creation or evolution)) and

2) it ignores variant theories past and present like Progressive, Deistic, Theistic, Regressive, Lamarckian, Lysenkoian, and Punctuated Equilibrium.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This article is and always will be about the the theory of Evolution. In fact, it should be deleted and redirected to Evolution. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This collapsing of people's arguments in an effort to hide them needs to stop. As I pointed above the article is a train wreck as it fails to explains if Evolutionism is really about the process of Evolution (change though time) or about one of the methods of that process (Progressive, Deistic, Theistic, Regressive, Lamarckian, Lysenkoian, Darwinian, and Punctuated Equilibrium.) In fact the only really referenced part of the definition is "Evolutionism refers to the biological concept of evolution" which fits ALL of the above methods.

A quick look through the material raises serious questions about just what Evolutionism means:

"By evolutionism we mean the ideas and doctrines connected with the general theory of evolution. Evolution is the theory of development." (Cohn, Frederick (1909) Evolutionism and idealism in ethics)

By contrast Carneiro, Robert Léonard (2003)Evolutionism in cultural anthropology: a critical history gives us several versions all called Evolutionism but does NOT give us a clear definition covering all of them.

As for the "appears to have nothing to do with the article's topic (which is Evolutionism, not Evolution" song and dance that applies to most of the references in the article itself such as this:

""Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time", Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media, Pew Research Center"

Mind telling us just what that has to do with Evolutionism rather than Evolution?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)BruceGrubb: I make no apologies for collapsing your off-topic soapboxing. This article IS NOT evolution nor the history of evolutionary thought. I will thank you to keep your "train wreck" of an argument on the subject at hand -- instead of wandering off into irrelevancies. As to the substance of your argument, your claim that "Progressive, Deistic, Theistic, Regressive, Lamarckian, Lysenkoian, Darwinian, and Punctuated Equilibrium" are "methods of that process" is (i) unsubstantiated & (ii) ranges from inaccurate to ludicrous (depending on which example is taken). Finally, it is difficult to work out from your meanderings what changes to the article you are actually advocating. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as your tacked-on question -- it is pointing to the fact that Creationists insist on refering to the theory of evolution as an "ism", despite the fact that it is as well-supported as the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease, yet we don't see the term "gavitism" or "germism" in widespread use. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Claiming soapboxing does not make it true. Right now there is NO reference that shows that the definition of Evolutionism in this article is little more than unsupported OR especially that "inheritance of acquired characters" stuff which would predate Darwin by nearly 50 years.

As for your claim of wandering off into irrelevancies I suggest you read following:

Modern ideas of evolution as related to revelation and science (1890) Sir John William Dawson (regarding Theistic evolution)

Darwin, God and the Meaning of Life Steve Stewart-Williams (2010) Cambridge University Press (regarding Deistic evolution)

Essentials of argumentation Sept 1898; Foundations of Forest Ecosystems: Scientific method' Egolfs Voldemars Bakuzis (1976) (regarding Regressive evolution)

Methods and causes of evolution Orator Fuller Cook (1908) (regarding Progressive evolution)

A History of Archeological Thought Bruce Trigger (1986) (regarding the use of both Evolutionism and neo-Evolutionism in Archeological theory)

and understand Evolution is simply change over time while there are various theories (some of which have been thrown on the dustbin of history) about the method of that change. Neo-Evolutionism of the 1970s for instance held "that human beings sought to preserve a familiar style of life unless change was forced on them by factors that were beyond their control" (pg 290) which is a near 180 from the progressive and regressive (or degenerative as they called it) versions of the 19th century.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What you're describing as "little more than unsupported OR" is an accurate summary of the cited source, it's nice of you to list some books for us to read but you've shown no evidence conflicting with this article. Do these sources specifically discuss the use of this term, or are they books you've found using variations on the term? . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The "organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves, and that changes are progressive and can arise through inheritance of acquired characteristics'" stuff is totally unsourced and conflicts with about every definition in the sources above. Also one of the very references of this article states ""Evolutionism" means different things to different people. For example, there are theistic evolutionists and there are atheistic evolutionists."--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Tagging

Androbeta has added a series of tags to the article. This despite the fact that s/he has failed to respond to the previous section. Several editors has asked for an explanation, but has been forthcoming in over two weeks. You can't tag an article if you refuse to discuss the problem. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have made a dispute resolution at one of the noticeboards a while ago and decided to wait until someone will intervene. The ones who have failed to bring real arguments are you, your only advantage is your number, however Wikipedia is not a democracy. You are forbidden to delete the dispute templates until the dispute is gone. --ANDROBETA 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also like you to notice that the one with the arguments during the entire discussion was me. In the so called Proposals for change section people basically only said that they do not agree without pointing out what exactly they do not agree with and why. So it was obvious that continuing the discussion was useless. --ANDROBETA 21:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - you said So I suppose we all agree (more or less) and understand that the change needs to be done? And three people answered "no, what?" And you never replied. Since you never replied, and you still haven't explained anything, you can't tag the article. "It's a secret" isn't an acceptable basis for a content dispute. Guettarda (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is that you've now edited this page twice, and yet you still refuse to explain your cryptic comment. Your disruptive tagging and refusal to engage with other editors is totally unacceptable behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be kind if you would stop forwarding your destructive lack of logic. As I said, I responded to all the "arguments" brought to me in the section where the actual discussion took place, since people stopped replying to my comments I deduced that I obtained a consensus, but I decided to still ask them before I make the change. But though they brought no more arguments (and there was absolutely nothing to reply to) they still continued to refute the change. At that point I understood that I'm wasting my time, so I made a dispute resolution that haven't been answered yet. If you do not agree with what I said in the "Evolution=belief?" section you are absolutely free to continue the discussion there. --ANDROBETA 14:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my stupidity, but I don't follow. How exactly is the article lacking in a global viewpoint, in what respect is it not neutral, what undue weight does it lend to what viewpoint, and (most importantly) how do you propose to amend it to address these concerns? I have read your contributions to the discussion above, and I do not understand the problem. Please explain before you yet again slap on those tags. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it either. I did drag my eyes over the "arguments" above, without much enlightenment. From what I can see, most of the explicit contention revolves around the word "belief" in the lead, in the phrase "a widely held 19th century belief that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves". If that is the case, the tags seem excessive. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

SNALWIBMA, you are obviously just being ignorant, you cannot possibly read my comments, in which I addressed exactly those points, and not find the answers. I should just ignore your comment as well...

Global viewpoint and undue weight - as I said the article concentrates on the use of the word "evolutionism" in modern English language of some countries by some religious groups as if evolutionism was an English only specific word/topic. This aspect not only that is inexistent in languages like mine but is inexistent in top dictionaries of the English language too, which obviously means that is rather irrelevant even in your language. This issue was highlighted previously by Tzw100 and Thesoxlost too.

Neutrality - in the introduction evolutionism is labeled with the religiously misleading term "belief" which is breaking the WP:LABEL policy (from which it all started). Seeing how keen people are on keeping that specific term in place reveal their highly biased thinking.

I've already clearly said what I want to and what should be changed in the "Evolution=belief?" section, if you really read my comments then you should have noticed.--ANDROBETA 17:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

ANDROBETA, please redact this statement immediately. It is a personal attack, and will cause you to be blocked. Your tendentious editing is getting you nowhere. You are here to cause trouble, obviously, and not to edit in good faith. You have failed to explain your edits, you have no idea what constitutes NPOV, and you are attacking other editors because we aren't allowing you to make frivolous and unsupported tags to the article. Your behavior is not acceptable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to explain your proposed changes... Guettarda (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

He was blocked for 8RR. I'm not sure what the record is, but 8RR has to be up there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere near a record. I'm sure much longer edit wars have been waged over much more inconsequential things... bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What was that about? It looked like the bot was reverting itself over and over again! When Wikipedia annoys me (which is daily), I entertain myself by reading WP:LAME.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Breaking the Article

So, obviously the article has a fundamental problem, since the primary concern of the AfD has not been addressed.

The crux of the issue is that there are two separate issues. There is the legitimate, outdated scientific usage, and the modern slur. So, why don't we split them and label them as such, with sections within each other containing a stub of the other, with a link?

Scientific usage - Evolutionism_(Historical), Evolutionism_(Scientific), or Evolutionism_(Outdated)
Creationist usage - Evolutionism_(Modern), Evolutionism_(Slur), or Evolutionism_(Creationism)

In Evolutionism_(Historical), we focus on the development of Evolutionism, prominent Evolutionists, its decline in official usage, and the modern view of the Scientific Community on the term, with a small stub on how it has been hijacked.

In Evolutionism_(Modern), we focus on the fact that it is used by Creationists out of a misunderstanding of Science, or as an attempt to discredit their opponents, as well as a thorough explanation of the view of both Creationists and Scientists, with specific attention on why it is incorrect, per WP:PSCI. Then, a small stub in there, on the original meaning of the term.

Homo Logica (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We try not to create POV forks, especially since this article is so short. Really, just a couple of editors are trying to change it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a legitimate fork, since there are two separate applications and meanings, of the term? A POV fork would be if there were two perspectives, and we created an article on each. This is, effectively, two different words. It's definitely too short right now, as you said. When looking for material to expand it, though, I'm having trouble determining what the material is, for which I would be looking.

• If I expand upon the history of the term, it lends legitimacy to the modern Creationist application, thus making it POV.
• If I expand upon the Creationist application, it gives undue weight to the Creationist usage, as it denies the legitimate origins of the term, thus making it POV.

I think that putting something like Evolutionism_(Slur) would be POV pushing, which is why I suggested some other ways to do it. My personal preference is Historical and Modern, or potentially Scientific and Modern.

Homo Logica (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there isn't two meanings. There is one meaning that is obsolete and corrupted by creationists. Few, if any, evolutionary biologists refer to themselves as "evolutionists." So to fork it would assume that someone would understand the difference and believe it is actually used. It really isn't. I'm an evolutionary biologist, and frankly, I never heard of "evolutionism" until I was editing something on Wikipedia a few years ago. It's only notable use is pejorative. I'm unconvinced, but others may not be, that this requires two articles. I'm disgusted that there's one, but our only other alternative would be to redirect to Evolution, which would imply evolutionism is evolution. I understand what you're trying to do Homo Logica, but a good encyclopedia shouldn't try to meet the needs of the fringe group. It should, in a neutral manner, show what the fringe side believes, and do the best we can. I think a review of WP:FORK might be useful for both of us. Maybe you're right. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be even more horrified by a redirect to Evolution, because that would imply that Evolutionism refers to actual Evolution. Essentially, the same point you're making. That its current use is only pejorative. The complicating factor, in my view, is the fact that it actually used to be a legitimate term. Just like you, Wikipedia was my first encounter with it as such. My first thought, upon encountering this article was to put it up for AfD. Then I read the discussion from it. That's where I found out it used to actually have a legitimate usage. What I'm going to do is see if I can find enough information on the historical usage (which should be a pain, because of its current use), and, as you said, review WP:FORK.

Homo Logica (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I meant for us to read WP:CFORK because it's content forking that is of concern. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Under Related Articles it does say: "Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term." which might apply here. Since they are the same terms, but one is in Cultural Anthropology, and the other in, for lack of a better category, Biology, they are distinct topics.

I did a quick search, and I have a bit of material on the Anthropological usage. I'm going to try to get a list of notables, a bit more on the history, and fallout of usage.

Homo Logica (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There is not sufficient material to warrant splitting this article (by material, I mean encyclopedic text based on reliable secondary sources that could plausibly be added). When proposing a change, please specify why it is needed and what benefits would follow. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq has a point -- the article is currently 8k and 10 citations. It'd probably need about double of both to sustain two viable articles. Why don't we see if the article can be built up further, and split when there's enough material on any single subtopic to survive on its own. 08:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The article should NOT be split per WP:CFORK. Take a look at Focal infection theory for an example how to deal with a term that has taken on different meanings over the years.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that if Homo Logica has some additional reliable sources, we should use it in beefing up this article rather than splitting it per WP:CFORK. I think the people who look up "evolutionism" will need to know what it means both historically and currently, all in one place. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Bulk the article up first. The more content there is, the more obvious the distinction (or lack thereof) is likely to become. Guettarda (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on bulking it up, but as I said, my main objection is that it will give WP:UNDUE to the more modern usage. The reason it isn't the same as Focal infection theory is because it isn't an outgrowth of the previous usage or a modification to the pre-existing, legitimate usage. It's a completely separate usage of the word. Thus, it would fall under a different topic, as I indicated above, per Related Articles.

Homo Logica (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would expanding the article give more weight to modern usage? Guettarda (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If I had the history of the scientific term, and the same article discusses the modern usage, it will make it seem like the history, and actual evolutionists, have something to do with the Creationist's, "evolutionists". Since the history provided would be for the Cultural Anthropology usage which has fallen into disuse, people who visit would be given the impression that it relates to the current usage, which is just a word to describe Evolutionary Biologists. Their history, usage, section of science, definitions, everything... are separate. The only thing that the two uses have in common, is the word itself.

Homo Logica (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. You actually have two problems here.

1) the ideas behind both Creation and Evolution have themselves evolved. To some degree originally started in the 18th century as Neptunism vs Plutonism changing to Catastrophism vs Uniformitarianism in the 19th.

2 The concept (Evolution ie general change) is being purposely confused with a particular method of that concept (ie Darwinian Evolution)

3) Biological scientists no more believe in pure Darwinian evolution then physicists believe in pure Newtonian physics but we teach those to our kids because they are easier to understand.

If you go through Carneiro's book and follow it up with Trigger's you will see that 19th century "Evolutionism" was more a outgrowth of the Imperial Synthesis ideas present than anything out of either the Creationists or scientists--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little confused. It was originally a derivative outgrowth of Darwin's work, in the 19th Century, to Cultural Anthropology. However, Evolutionism itself, had nothing to do with Evolution. It had to do with a specific progression that all societies followed. Homo Logica (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clear you need to go and read both Carneiro and Trigger. "Evolutionism" as a concept predated Darwin by nearly 100 years and applied to biology as well as societies. --BruceGrubb (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still confused about what exactly you're trying to indicate. Are you saying that Evolutionism, as the Creationists use it, is just a derivative version of Evolutionism, as is used in Cultural Anthropology? Homo Logica (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Carneiro and Trigger? They explain the history of "Evolutionism" and its relation to evolution reasonably well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct tags

If a citation contained in an article does not support the material cited to it, then the correct tag is {{failed verification}} NOT {{{Citation needed}}, which should never follow a citation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew about that tag but couldn't find it. The other one was the closest I could find. BigJim707 (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any ideas about how to change the text so it more closely reflects what the sources say? BigJim707 (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The first tagged-ref should simply be eliminated -- leaving it cited solely to Ruse, rather than attempting to reword it to fit both sources.
2. The second: "The Institute for Creation Research describes 'evolutionism' (along with atheism, pantheism and humanism) as a "false religion" unsupported by science, and describes atheism, humanism, New Age-ism, occultism, liberalism, Marxism and fascism as "evolutionary religions". It proffers a large range of scientific evidence that it states is amenable to a "Creationist Interpretation" as well as to an "Evolutionist" one."
3. Third: "The argument is that 'evolution' is an 'ism' "because believing in evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and requires placing one’s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past." "

Incidentally, on closer examination, the appropriate inline tag would have been {{syn}} -- as the problem is that the claims are WP:Synthesis of the cited sources, rather than that the sources outright fail to discuss the subject matter (a reasonably-full listing of inline templates may be found at Category:Inline templates). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I may have just mucked up your efforts here. Because of the conversation below I ended up rereading that entire section, including the sources and I just pulled that verification needed tag you added. Now that I've read this discussion, I'm wondering if I interpreted the sources correctly. Check the edit history and revert me if needed please? I don't edit on these articles often (stuff related to atheism, evolution, science, creationism, etc.) except to watch for blatant vandalism and maybe fix a sentence that comes out choppy periodically. I follow them out of topical interest but I am just a layman (laychick?) so my ability to misinterpret stuff is probably pretty high. Millahnna (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)