WikiProject Sociology	(Rated C-Class, High-importance)	SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Sociology portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology 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.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Anthropology	(Rated C-Class, High-importance)	AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Evolutionism:
Here are some tasks you can do: Wikify: Use inline references rather than external links Expand: Some sections are just drafts at this stage

Archives
Up to February 2008

Contents 1 Proposed redirect 2 Irrelevancy and opinions 3 Science Article 4 Talkorigins archive removal 5 Newbie Question/suggestion 6 Ongoing revert/re-revert 7 Snalwibma's Reversions 8 Papal magisterium 9 Proposed redirect to History of evolutionary thought 10 Talk.Origins Archive 11 What creationists think doesn't make it true

[edit] 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)

[edit] Irrelevancy and opinions

I honestly tried to provide what I thought was an objective rewrite of this article since the way the term may be used by some creationists is a matter of someone's opinion and the term evolutionist can also be used by scientists or laypersons to describe themselves at times. Wether the term was orginally coined by people that were creationists really seems to be a matter of opinion since noone knows for sure. I provided real, valid sources rather than a bunch of garbage from talk forums like talk.origins. This article seems to imply that there is a creationist conspiracy afoot to label people as "evolutionists" which is not really any more valid than me rewriting the article to redirect to a page about the vast left-wing evolution conspiracy.

I'm hopeful that some sort of compromise could be reached so that this article deals with the subject at hand. The theory of evolution need not be explained to people on this page since that is what the evolution page is for. The information I provided in the edit that was reverted by an administrator as you can see in the [History] was more relevant to the subject and was verifiable, whereas the sources cited from talk forums and even free web hosting services like geocities cheapen this encylopedia and make it a forum for petty bickering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So among other things, I take it you propose remove the fragment "the theory of evolution itself is referred to as 'evolutionism' by creationists who portray it as a kind of secular religion", which was sourced to an article published in the magazine Science, a fairly prestigious and reliable source, rather than talkorigins. Is Science not a "real valid source" for you? If not, how does your above post address this aspect of the change? The other parts of your proposed change should also be laid out. For example, on what basis do you assert that evolution "attempts to explain" rather than "explains"? Does it fail to do so in some way that can be attributed to a significant number of reliable sources? Also, explain exactly why it is that an editorial published in Wired Magazine by someone called Michael Schrage is a more reliable source for the Creation-evolution controversy than talkorigins.org, a moderated forum with a substantial reputation for reliability on the controversy? As far as I can tell, that is the only source you have added (besides misrepresenting the Science source), and it is really not as authoritative as you seem to believe. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Silly Rabbit, yes, that fragment should be removed. The Science Article does not state anywhere that the term is used to portray "it" as some kind of secular religion. More to the point, the statement is clearly a biased POV statement that is inappropriate in a wiki article. I don't like Tzw100's changes, but the article needs work. --Thesoxlost (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You feel that the Science article does not support the proposed wording. That's fair enough, and I am open for discussion. However, you will note that the above post did not address this. In fact, the above post addressed almost no aspects of the proposed edit. The only thing that it addressed was the reliability of the talk.origins website. I note from the edit history that you seem to agree with Tzw about this. However, in addition to winning accolades from the scientific community, this site has been nearly unanimously agreed to be reliable for use in articles on the creation-evolution controversy in this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10#TalkOrigins Archive. So please stop removing the link as a reference in this article. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science Article

The science article does not at all state that the term "evolutionist" is used by creationists for any purpose. That is factually incorrect. I removed the reference because it does not support the statement. Its an interesting article, though, and relevant to the history section. I added a reference there. My edit was reverted because the reference was "sufficient for an intro" and "supported later in the article." Neither is true. --Thesoxlost (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit is a rampant anti-evolution POV push which removes all sources which are used to make any contention about creation believers which you find objectionable. Thus it's been reverted, and will be again. ThuranX (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, my edit was an attempt to improve a POV article. I am a scientist; a neuroscientist, to be specific. I'm not a creationist. I believe there is overwhelming support for evolution. I also believe that the Science Article reference in no way supports the statement made in the wiki article. Tzw100 is correct: saying that creationists use a term in a particular way for a particular purpose needs to be strongly supported by a solid reference, or it violates WP:POV. Please re-read WP:POV and WP:etiquette.

This quote:

A major complaint of the Creationists, those who are committed to a Genesis-based story of origins, is that evolution--and Darwinism in particular--is more than just a scientific theory. They object that too often evolution operates as a kind of secular religion, pushing norms and proposals for proper (or, in their opinion, improper) action.

is the first sentence in an article that tries to explain what "evolution" is, what it has meant, and what it means now. This quote does not say anything about how creationists use the term "evolutionism" or "evolutionist." Nor does the article; elsewhere, "evolutionism" is used once, not in the context of how creationists use the term. I think that the equation of creationism and evolutionism is ridiculous; but the current wiki article is a thinly veiled anti-creationist rant that lacks support. This article needs to meet wikipedia standards. If you believe that it needs to make a point about how the term is used, then find a source to reference. Do some research.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, the purpose of this article is not to make POV statements about people of faith but rather to provide information about the term evolutionism and evolutionist. There has been no poll or study conducted to determine how many creationists, scientists, muslims, christians, atheists or anyone else uses the term and why. Claims such as creationists use this term for purpose X to achieve goal Y are not even factually verifiable and are more akin to conspiracy theory. The term evolutionist is defined in the [dictionary]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So creationists use words by random accident rather than for a purpose? How ironic. This article must report clearly on the usage by many creationists, and by the tendency of scientists to avoid the term because of that creationist usage. . dave souza, talk 10:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

They use it the same way someone would use the word atomist to describe something. SO what? That doesn't give you the right to say why and how it is used and the science article uses it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzw100 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talkorigins archive removal

Please stop removing the talk.origins archive. This is considered a reliable source in articles on the creation-evolution controversy, per this discussion. So far these sources were removed three times, and reverted all three times by different editors. Someone was bold, but then reverted. The onus is now on that editor to discuss in the hopes that a new consensus will emerge, not to continue to edit war. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasonable post, Silly rabbit. I hadn't seen that discussion board. I find it hard to believe that TalkOrigins is a WP:RS, but I'll look over the discussion and won't make any changes to the TalkOrigins reference without discussion. I believe the Science article deletion still stands, however. The reference simply does not support the statement being referenced. --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please take your creationist POV to another wiki. TalkOrigins is absolutely RS, because it uses citations to confirm what it writes. It functions as a well written review article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with the last sentence. At any rate, I have provided a direct quotation of the first sentence of the science article, so that readers can more easily verify exactly what the source says: that creationists portray the theory of evolution as a secular religion. This, at least, is fully supported by the quotation. I have, in addition, provided a link to the toarchive article, which also supports the statement. But discussion of the Science article should be undertaken above, in the thread entitled "Science Article". Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Silly Rabbit. It looks like TalkOrigins is being treated like other self-published works, and considered on a case-by-case basis. If the author is considered an expert in the field, it should be allowed. I edited the page again keeping in mind the substantive complaints of those who objected. On Wikipedia, you can't make blanket statements like "Creationists use term X to mean Y" without hard evidence. The TalkOrigin site lists evidence in the form of plaques at the Institute of Creation Research. I've modified the page to make clear that we are talking about the ICR. This was an attempt to come to a synthesis and improve the article, and not to create or further an edit war.

I would strongly encourage those of you who want to say that "Creationists" use the term in this way to provide more references for other creationists using the term in this way. The ICR should not be considered to talk for all Creationists. As I said, I'm not a creationist, and I find the claims of the ICR laughable. But the integrity of wikipedia depends on sticking to very strict standards, even if that means watering down your own strongly held position to the key, supported points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesoxlost (talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Another editor changed the site to read: "Some creationists... use these terms in an effort to make it appear the scientific theory is a form of secular religion." But as Silly Rabbit's quote makes clear, the article states that a "major complaint of the Creationists... is that evolution--and Darwinism in particular--is more than just a scientific theory. They object that too often evolution operates as a kind of secular religion." It may be the case that creationists use the term evolutionism as a form of religion, but all the article says is that they complain that it too often operates as a religion. If you want to make this strong of a claim, you'll need to find another reference. This Science article simply doesn't support that strong of a statement. --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't care what creationists say. I care about NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Ongoing revert/re-revert

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.^{[citation needed]}"

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."^[1]"

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."^[2] 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)