Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationism and macroevolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Although the subject could be encyclopedic, this is a POV rant that has been listed on cleanup and not since improved. Basically its an apology for creationism, and, speaking as someone with a biology degree, it's nonsense. That we're also being mentioned on usenet [1] is also bad. Dunc_Harris| 20:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete the article, the author, everyone who's ever read the article and their friends and family. And their neighbour's dog. Or just the article. There's no effort to say who believes what, beyond "a creationist would say". Unless prominent creationists are cited this can't be allowed to remain. It's too POV. Rory 21:15, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's original research. It's not news that creation and macroevolution can be reconciled, but an encyclopedia article doesn't play like this. In fact, before Wallace and Darwin, churchmen were already saying that they thought the Genesis model was metaphoric, that many centuries is a day, etc. Geogre 21:36, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a thought provoking article! -- Crevaner 02:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Delete. Average Earthman 12:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • A google search for some (not all) of the excerpts from the original is turning up links to the Creationism article on several Wikipedia forks. Nothing said here that wasn't already said in Creationism; delete. I would also contest your assertion that this article was "thought provoking." --Ardonik.talk() 02:29, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • This article seems important enough that many people here want to clean this article up, so I'm changing my vote from delete to keep. Let's see what happens to it. --Ardonik.talk() 23:33, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks and delete from here. Original research is not the mission of WP. Davodd 07:25, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove from main namespace only. Transwiki to wikibooks, or move to a subpage under /talk for evolution or creationism. Someone has been doing some work on this, and (first glance only) it's even somewhat sane, so might be nice to preserve it somewhere, but outside main wikipedia namespace. Kim Bruning 09:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • change vote to neutral after having done some work on it. I can't advocate deleting stuff I've just worked on of course! ;-) Please check! Kim Bruning 11:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Anon vote - Keep but clean up or move back to original article. If moved outside it will be difficult to find. There are good, specific examples microevolution/macroevolution therein. 12.64.134.66 12:34, 6 Sep 2004
  • Keep. The reasoning is atrocious and the handling of empirical data is despicable. However, the believers in evolution have so nuked the Creationism page that this new page is the only place in Wikipedia that you can read--for a short time--a statement of the creationist "theory," "explanation," "myth," or "fairy-tale"--whatever you want to call it in an uninterrupted statement. What is needed is that the believers of evolution become responsible for having won the battle of evolutionism versus creationism and allow the creationists to make a clear statement of creationism on the Creationism page, but such a miracle is not likely. Until the believers in evolution grow up and become responsible citizens of Wikipedia, this Creationism and macroevolution page should remain. The intellectual challenge for the evolutionists is to see if we can turn the Creationism and macroevolution page into a page like unto Evolution where one theory is presented clearly and uninterrupted with a few limited sections for rebuttal and presentations of the opposition. ---Rednblu 00:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Stop it. Stop insulting us, stop lumping us all into one box, and stop thrusting your virulent and acidic POV into our faces, now. It's not welcome here. Be a Wikipedian first and a Creationist second. (And while you're at it, please lurk on the talk.origins newsgroup; if you have any reasonably convincing anti-evolution argument, they'd love to here it over there. I'm dead serious; most pro-creationism arguments are incredibly poor.) --Ardonik.talk() 00:28, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
      • Interesting response! :)) I agree with you that "most pro-creationism arguments are incredibly poor." However, the advocates of the pro-creationism arguments should be able on Wikipedia to state their "incredibly poor" arguments in a clear and uninterrupted page with the rebuttal and dissent limited to a few sections--such as in the style of Evolution. ---Rednblu 01:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Then see Creationism, often cited as an example of how NPOV can be made to work on the Wikipedia. Its talk page is one of the most active on the English Wikipedia. I don't quite understand your objection? P'raps you'd like to see more statements to the tune of "Evolution is false and defies God's will" inserted into the Evolution article? --Ardonik.talk()
          • D'oh! You're a regular there. My bad. --Ardonik.talk() 04:20, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Probably I'm just being pedantic, and you mean the same, but note that you can't actually believe in evolution. It's not a belief, form of belief, system of belief, faith, deity, apostle, prophet, spiritual guideline or magical formula. (this list non-exhaustive, but you catch the drift) :-) Kim Bruning 13:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I have taken the liberty of copying your worthy comment above to the talk page and have responded there to avoid interrupting the flow of business here. ;) ---Rednblu 17:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it needs a lot of work and should probably be merged with one of the other Creationism vs. Science articles, or at least moved to a more apt title (like "Microevolution vs. Macroevolution"), eventually. Remember that this is a viewpoint that many people hold strongly, and have expended vast amounts of time and energy writing about. --Yath 10:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've done some fixing of the statements wrt science in this article to make it more factual. Kim Bruning 11:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: essay, original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Creationism is entirely dependent on the false dichotomy of micro vs. macro evolution, this page serves no useful purpose outside the main Creationism page. without the belief in microevolution creationism is an empty idea, they are too codependent to merit a separate page. rhyax 08:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original sophistry research. -- orthogonal 23:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research - Tεxτurε 23:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete WhisperToMe 05:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This article is "under rescue", or was. I think there's a bug in the vfd process where an article that's actively being edited and fixed will loose its editors "because it's going to be deleted anyway". :-( Kim Bruning 08:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's being rescued from the religious sectarians only to fall into the hands The Panda's Thumbs of those most sectarian Marxists Gould and Lewontin, who conducted their own Inquisition against E. O. Wilson and sociobiology/evolutionary psychology. I'd rather see us keep Anarcho Coronado de Murillo; at least that's not likely to be believed, and on being believed distort readers' understanding of modern science. This "article" can't be rescued nor should it be, unless Phlogiston, the Four humours, and the Reptilian humanoids are getting lonely. -- orthogonal 09:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Quick note to the (eventual) deleter: Several people are agreeing that the article is not salvagable. If at crunch time the consensus is to delete, please move this article into the wikipedia namespace, or move it to my user talk. I think there's several bugs in procedures that have been exposed by this vfd, and I'd like to do postmortem to see if I'm right or (hopefully) wrong. Thanks in advance! Kim Bruning 13:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If people decide to lose this info it would be a shame. But I understand that Wikipedia has certain protocols. Hopefully it will be availiable unmolested (or at least not too terribly molested :-)) in some easy to find way. Cheers! 12.64.134.66

  • Delete. This deserves deserved discussion, but certainly not this much coverage -- and it should be elsewhere. --Xiaopo 00:47, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. May need cleanup, backup, fact-check, references, whatever. Not the same as delete. Remove rubbish bits if you're concerned. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)