Talk:Evolution/WIP: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
deleting. issue resolved |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Social and religious controversies== |
|||
{{more|Social effect of evolutionary theory|Creation-evolution controversy|Objections to evolution}} |
|||
[[Image:Darwin ape.jpg|left|160px|thumb|This caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] as an [[ape]] reflects the cultural backlash against evolution and [[common descent]]]] |
|||
Since publication of ''[[The Origin of Species]]'' in 1859, evolution has been a source of nearly constant controversy due to its social, philosophical, and religious implications. Some have embraced its ideas and extended them to support controversial theories such as [[Social Darwinism]] and policies such as [[compulsory sterilization]]. Others have resisted its perceived conflicts with their religious beliefs, leading in recent years to the growth of the [[Creation Science]] and [[Intelligent Design]] movements. |
|||
===Social theories=== |
|||
Evolution has been used to support philosophical and ethical views which most contemporary scientists consider were neither mandated by evolution nor supported by science.<ref>[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] strongly disagreed with attempts by [[Herbert Spencer]] and other to extrapolate evolutionary ideas to all possible subject matters; see {{cite book|first=Mary|last=Midgley|authorlink=Mary Midgley|title=The Myths we Live By|publisher=Routledge|date=2004|pages=62|isbn=978-0415340779}}</ref> For example, the [[eugenics|eugenic]] ideas of [[Francis Galton]] were developed into arguments that the human gene pool should be improved by [[selective breeding]] policies, including incentives for reproduction for those of "good stock" and disincentives, such as [[compulsory sterilization]], [[T-4 Euthanasia Program|"euthanasia"]], and later, [[prenatal testing]], [[birth control]], and [[genetic engineering]], for those of "bad stock". Another example of an extension of evolutionary theory that is now widely regarded as unwarranted is "[[Social Darwinism]]", a term given to the 19th century [[British Whig Party|Whig]] [[Malthusianism|Malthusian]] theory developed by [[Herbert Spencer]] into ideas about "[[survival of the fittest]]" in commerce and human societies as a whole, and by others into claims that [[social inequality]], [[racism]], and [[imperialism]] were justified.<ref>On the history of eugenics and evolution, see: {{cite book|first=Daniel|last=Kevles|authorlink=Daniel Kevles|title=In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity|publisher=Knopf|date=1985|isbn=978-0674445574}}</ref> |
|||
===Creation-evolution controversy=== |
|||
The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of [[Age of the Earth|the Earth]], [[human evolution|humanity]], [[origin of life|life]], and [[Big Bang|the universe]],<ref>See {{harvnb|Hovind|2006}}, for example.</ref> a debate most prevalent in certain regions of the [[United States]], where it is often portrayed as part of the [[culture war]]s.<ref>{{harvnb|Larson|2004|p=247-263}} Chapter titled ''Modern Culture Wars''. See also {{harvnb|Ruse|1999|p=26}}, who writes "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that, contrary to the usually held tale of science and religion being always opposed...religion and theologically inclined philosophy have frequently been very significant factors in the forward movement of science."</ref> While the controversy has a long history,<ref>{{harvnb|Numbers|1992|p=3-240}}</ref> today it is mainly over what constitutes good [[science]],<ref name="Peters_and_Hewlett_2005_p1">{{harvnb|Peters & Hewlett|2005|Ref=CITEREFPetersHewlett2005|p=1}}</ref><ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/2:Context|Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 20]</ref> with the [[politics of creationism]] primarily focusing on the teaching of [[creation and evolution in public education]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html]</ref><ref>[http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/Renka/Renka_papers/intell_design.htm]</ref><ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=5262]</ref><ref>[http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/NaturalHistory_200204_Forrest.html]</ref><ref>Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, pages 7-9, also pages 64-90</ref> |
|||
Debate on the details of scientific theories and their philosophical or religious implications are often the most intense parts of the controversy. Some participants on both sides believe that the conflict boils down to opposing definitions of all or parts of science, reality, and religion.<ref name="Peters_and_Hewlett_2005_p1"/> Accusations of misleading formulations, incorrect or false statements, and inappropriate mixing of ideas are also fundamental points of disagreement.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} Some consider the term "creation vs. evolution" itself is misleading, believing it implies a [[false dichotomy]] and adds fuel to the debate. |
|||
The [[level of support for evolution]] is overwhelming in the [[scientific community]] and [[academia]],<ref>{{harvnb|Myers|2006}}; {{harvnb|NSTA|2003}}; {{harvnb|IAP|2006}}; {{harvnb|AAAS|2006}}; and {{harvnb|Pinholster|2006}}</ref> while support for creation based alternatives where evolution does not take place is minimal among secular scientists.<ref>{{harvnb|Larson|2004|p=258}} "Virtually no secular scientists accepted the doctrines of creation science; but that did not deter creation scientists from advancing scientific arguments for their position." See also {{Harvnb|Martz & McDaniel|1987|Ref=CITEREFMartzMcDaniel1987|p=23}}, a Newsweek article which states "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."</ref> |
|||
===Objections to Evolution=== |
|||
There have been numerous objections to evolution since [[Charles Darwin]] put forth the theory of [[evolution]] by [[natural selection]] in his 1859 book ''[[The Origin of Species]]''. Although alternative theories were soon proposed, Darwin's theory eventually came to be universally accepted by the [[scientific community]]. The existence of evolutionary processes and the [[modern evolutionary synthesis|current theory]] explaining them have been considered a fundamental precept of biology amongst scientists for nearly a century. |
|||
Since then, most criticisms of evolution have come from religious, rather than scientific, sources. Although most Abrahamic religions do not consider evolution to be in opposition to their beliefs and theology, including those religions that advocate [[theistic evolution]], other religions reject it in favor of [[creationism]], that is, the view that [[God]] created the world largely in its current form. The resultant [[creation-evolution controversy]] has been a focal point of recent conflict between [[relationship between religion and science|religion and science]]. |
|||
In contrast to earlier objections to evolution that utilized either strictly scientific or explicitly religious explanations, recent objections to evolution have frequently attempted to blur the distinction between the two. Movements such as [[Creation Science]] and [[Intelligent Design]] attack the scientific basis of evolution and argue that there is greater scientific evidence for the design of life by God or an intelligent being, although they do not meet the most of the standards of [[Scientific method]]. Many of the arguments against evolution have become widespread, including objections to evolution's evidence, methodology, plausibility, morality, and scientific acceptance. However, these arguments have been rejected by biologists and are not accepted by the scientific community in general.<ref name="aaas">{{cite web|url=http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf|title=Statement on the Teaching of Evolution|publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science|date=2006|accessdate=2007-03-20}}</ref> |
|||
==Footnotes== |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
=Discussion= |
|||
Proposing this edit to replace current Controversy section. The goal is to base the section on more detailed sub-articles. Changes are: |
|||
* Three sub-sections: Social theories, Creation-evolution controversy, Objections to evolution |
|||
* Social theories: No good sub-article exists. Text taken from a paragraph in previous version |
|||
* Creation-evolution controversy: text copied from introduction of main article with minor changes |
|||
* Objections to evolution: text copied from introduction to main article with minor changes |
|||
I wish I could find a good sub-article for Social theories. The other two sections have good sub-articles (especially Objections), but there may be some overlap---they probably need some trimming. [[User:Gnixon|Gnixon]] 16:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
My thoughts on it: |
|||
#Please make sure that the references utilize standard formatting. As articles grow, badly formatted references get confusing. Just a retentive point of mine. |
|||
#I consider the Social theories section to be highly POV. Most of those comments are old canards thrown out, and they have little validity. Social Darwinism and the old "survival of the fittest" stuff doesn't deserve a section. |
|||
#The other two sections seem to have a POV that the "science" of Evolution is worthy of disrespect. It seems to give a lot of undue weight to the ID/Creationist dogma. It should describe the discussion between the polar opposites without giving weight to the creationists believing that science supports their thoughts. |
|||
In the end, I really don't like these sections, never did. [[User:Orangemarlin|Orangemarlin]] 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I appreciate your efforts, but I too never cared for this section as it distracted from the science. There are already several articles that focus on the Controversy. I realize that doesn't offer much encouragement to one making a good faith effort to improve what was already there. Frankly, a few references directing the readers who are seeking the controversy to the appropriate main entries would be more than adequate, ie, less is best. But as I stated, I have been beat-up on this suggestion on more than one occasion. In fact, it was the primary reason I assisted in drafting the introduction to evolution article. At least your writnig style is not coming across with the intensity I have seen in the past "The theory of Evolution and why creationism is wrong". The idea beening to educate not convert the reader to the scientific way of thinking. |
|||
:Perhaps this line is my idea of beating them over the head: |
|||
:#"The level of support for evolution is overwhelming in the scientific community and academia,[13] while support for creation based alternatives where evolution does not take place is minimal among secular scientists.[14]" |
|||
:Albeit true; is it necessary in pointing out the controversy that exist or is it a shot at creationism? |
|||
:Sorry, I ramble. Bottom-line clarification on this section I support; I would discourage expansion. --[[User:Random Replicator|Random Replicator]] 02:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks, both of you. I hope more people will comment and make improvements. I'll see what I can do about citations and keeping things short. I agree very strongly about not using this space to defend evolution or attack creationism. Keep in mind that essentially all I did was copy the introductions of the main articles. Maybe those introductions could use some work themselves, and maybe it would be better to instead attempt a summary of the intros. I agree that what's above is probably too long (but I'd say the same thing about the "Mechanisms" section). On the other hand, I do think the creation/evolution controversy is an important aspect of evolution---I think generally it's important for encyclopedia articles to cover all the interesting aspects of prominent sciences and to avoid writing a textbook. [[User:Gnixon|Gnixon]] 14:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||