Talk:Icons of Evolution

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Icons of Evolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Creationism: Intelligent design Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Evolutionary biology Low‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Pseudoscientific

I think that using the term "Pseudoscientific" should be removed from this article. I do not come to wikipedia to be told what to think about a topic but to get accurate information about the topic. I think this term should be removed.

Jonathan wells has two earned PhDs from Berkley and Yale. I think it is better to deal with the arguments that he presents instead of just calling this book pseudo science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.127.124 (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Wells' first PhD is in Theology (hardly relevant) and his second one was gained with a specific aim of aiding in "destroying Darwinism". Additionally, Wells has never worked as a scientist. (ii) This book, and his arguments contained within, have been unequivocally condemned by the scientific community (see 'Reception by the scientific community and criticism' section). (iii) The deficiencies of his arguments are dealt with in detail in the 'Wells' icons' sections. All this supports calling the book "pseudoscientific" (which is itself specifically cited). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin had a Bachelor Degree in Theology (hardly relevant) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.33.221 (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that degrees in Biology did not exist in Darwin's time (his work was part of what created the field as a science) it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT that he did not have an advanced degree in the subject (I rather doubt if Isaac Newton had an advanced degree in Physics either). Now please find somewhere else to troll. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just to correct our troll, Charles Darwin had an "ordinary" BA, the theology bit is a common misunderstanding. . . dave souza, talk 06:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biology degrees did exist in the time of Darwin, just Darwin was not interested in science. Darwin was into theology he was not educated in science. Isaac Newton had a mathematics degree. Many of the early biologists had degrees in biology they were educated in science. Darwin was not a biologist or a scientist. Even Jonathan Wells has more science qualifications than Darwin. WebofLife (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ WebofLife, biology degrees didn't exist ar Cambridge Uni during Charles Darwin's education, and the rest of your statement is blatantly incorrect as you'll see if you look at the article. Darwin had an excellent education in the science of the day, and was recognised as a scientist by his return from the Beagle voyage. There's more to science qualifications than a little-used phd. . . dave souza, talk 19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vote omitting the word "pseudoscientific" in that doing otherwise could start edit warring. As well as this, I see no empirical arguments in the article cited that justify the "pseudoscientific" label, and it seems to be a matter of dogmatic ideas, not of sound, scientific reasoning. If one finds an article with reasonable claims that attest to the "pseudoscientific" label, put it in the Wikipedia article, under "Criticism". The Intelligent Design article here on Wikipedia does not use the word "pseudoscientific", also due to neutrality, despite it having had this word in the first sentence previously. The introduction is not intended to be a platform for dogmatic statements. It is supposed to objectively sum up the contents of the article. Wsrh 2009 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Words_to_watch#Contentious labels and Wikipedia:FRINGE/PS Wsrh 2009 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

This article deals mainly with the criticism of its subject, making "Criticism of 'Icons of Evolution'" a more apt title. To make the article more neutral, please focus more on the book itself, rather than its criticism. Also, use sources from both opposing points of view, and not solely the evolutionist one. Wsrh 2009 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Weight and WP:FRINGE. We have to give more weight to the consensus within the entirety of the scientific community than we do the disparate opinions of creationists in non-academic literature. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for retitling the article so users know they are not getting a NPOV GoodMan23 (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Goodman23[reply]

See WP:NPOV], with particular attention to WP:WEIGHT – your idea of a NPOV does not appear to match this policy. . dave souza, talk 20:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the non-neutral POV criticisms. This is clearly written by a cabal of editor dedicated to smearing ID; the same issue is found consistently on every other wiki page relating to ID. This is exceptionally obvious when comparing wiki ID articles to the one on New World Encyclopedia. I cite coverage of ID anytime someone claims wiki is as accurate as other encyclopedias. Let's fix this issue and improve wikipedia. 74.132.169.132 (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user posted the same to the main ID article. Just to let other editors know, the New World Encyclopedia is a Unification Church run encyclopedia; not neutral by our standards. They specifically criticize "value neutral" encyclopedias and claim to transcend them. Sædon ^talk 04:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems I would like to point out in the article that I think that needs revision. The first and most important problem is that the article is not about the book itself. Instead, the article is all about criticism of the book and barely talks about the actual arguments presented in the book. Additionally, the call to "tell them they're full of crap" in the section about Haeckel's Embryos is not fact. This statement was written mainly out of opinion, not fact. Additionally, I think there should not be any section for the reception of the book by creationists because there is not enough information within the section and does not help clarify anything. Instead of separate sections, there should only be one section covering all responses of the book, from evolutionists to creationists. Also, the scientific community is not entirely composed of evolutionists, although it might seem that way. Overgeneralizing the scientific community as all evolutionists is primarily stereotypical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.39.194 (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Consider WP:PSCI. . . dave souza, talk 00:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Warning"

The first paragraph includes a parenthentical "warning, article biased against Wells--his rebuttals not shown here", which does not seem like an appropriate NPOV commentary. If appropriate, any "rebuttals" should instead be broken out into a separate section and appropriately sourced. Could an established editor please make the necessary revisions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.229.221 (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Icons of Evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]