Talk:Evolutionism

WP:UNDUE weight to a tiny minority

An IP wants to eliminate the WP:Verifiable claim that "to say someone is a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views" because a "tiny minority" (3%) may not "say humans and other living things have evolved over time". But WP:UNDUE states that "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" -- so we are fully justified in ignoring their view. I would further point out to our IP friend that such discussions belong here not on user talk. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, see my contribution below. WP:UNDUE is not applicable in this case, because I do not at all put forward the claim that 3% may not "say humans and other living things have evolved over time". And of course WP:UNDUE cannot be a legitimation to put forward contradictory statements and generalizations that are clearly false.

Note that in fact we have two different sources that contradict. One is a survey that claims that 97% of scientists accepts evolutionary views, the other is a personal opinion that in order to be a scientist, you have to accept evolutionary views.

So the latter is only a WP:Verifiable opinion and not a WP:Verifiable fact. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Logical inconsistency

Hi, I'm find myself involved in what seems to become an editwar about a statement that, as I see it, cannot be true. Of course, I have the terrible disadvantage of contributing without being logged in. But to be sure, I'm PhD student, I'm publishing scientific articles in major journals and giving presentations at major scientific conferences - although not in the field of evolution. I'm also a very experienced editor at the Dutch Wikipedia - although I rarely contribute here.

Now, hopefully someone will take me serious. The following two statements that are made in one sentence:

• the overwhelming majority of scientists accepts evolution (97% according to the reference)
• to say someone is a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views.

This cannot be both true, right? Either you must accept evolutionary views in order to be qualified as a scientist OR you can be a scientist regardless of what views you wish to accept. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

See the section just above this. And, yes they can both be correct. The second contains "implies" and yes 97% justifies the statement. Seriously :) Vsmith (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker, but just to be sure: the word "implies" points at a necessary consequence, right? [1]. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Implies points at a probable interpretation. The source we use for this statement phrases things in such a way that, to me at least, this is perfectly clear (search the source for the text we quote in the ref) that there is a little margin there. Millahnna (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so that's the source of confusion, if at least what you say is true (I cannot find it confirmed in the Merriam-Webster link I just gave). In Dutch the same word has a more powerful meaning. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

See also http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/imply. If you would express probability, I think you would say: to say someone is a scientist implies that one might accept evolutionary views or something like that.

It turns out to be a linguistic detail, but I still feel a bit disturbed about it. Why does one to have accept evolutionary views (or heliocentric views or whatever) in order to be a good scientist in the field of medieval history or Russian culture or nanotechnology or superconductivity or...? Many scientists wouldn't bother to be informed about evolution, let alone to accept it based on evidence. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Think of it this way; it's not that one has to so much as most do. Millahnna (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly, but what about the word encompass that is actually used in the source? I clearly want to get rid of the suggestion that it is a fact that one has to (although it may be a defendable opinion). 132.229.117.120 (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're positing someone having no need to know about evolution because their speciality in science doesn't involve evolution: in that case, they have no expertise on the topic and can only accept the scientific consensus on the matter. They're in no position to contest that consensus in science. Any uninformed rejection of evolution can only be a matter of non-scientific social views or beliefs, in which case they're not acting as scientists in rejecting evolution. It is of course hard to see how acceptance of science is compatible with anti-evolution or indeed with young-Earthist flat Earthism, but there's always a tiny fringe. . dave souza, talk 20:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be OK to me if the article just said something like that, but it doesn't. Tell me, what's the difference:

• being a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views
• being a christian implies acceptance of papal infallibility

You see? The article now gives the impression that evolution acceptance is about dogma, not about evidence. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No logical inconsistency, and yes WP:UNDUE is MOST CERTAINLY applicable

1. WP:UNDUE states that "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"
2. 3% is a tiny minority so can be ignored.
3. Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time" can therefore be treated as "All scientists say humans and other living things have evolved over time"
4. Therefore there is no inconsistency, when you take account of Wikipedia policy.

Further point:

• DO NOT remove WP:Verifiable material from the article without a WP:CONSENSUS, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Doing so is not acceptable practice.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's see how this turns out.

1. WP:UNDUE states that "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"
2. 3% is a tiny minority so can be ignored.
3. "Nearly all people (97%) hate war" can therefore be treated as "All people hate war"
4. Therefore there is no inconsistency, when you take account of Wikipedia policy, when you say that being human implies that one hates war.

I think that something goes very very wrong in your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. You seem to confuse the opinion of majorities with facts.

The statement would be pretty well supported if it was treated as an opinion. But it is by no means verified as long as it is put forward as a fact. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that all but a "tiny minority" accept evolutionary views. You are WP:EDITWARring to give WP:UNDUE weight to this tiny minority, and you are doing so against the WP:CONSENSUS of editors reverting you. STOP NOW! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No shouting and threatening please. This is not a war, this is an important discussion on the interpretation of Wikipedia policies.

What we actually agree about is that it is a fact that all but a "tiny minority" accept evolutionary views.

We only disagree how accurate we have to represent this fact. You actually claim that in some situations Wikipedia must deliberately represent facts inaccurately because an accurate representation of a fact will put undue weight.

It is not at all my objective to give more weight to creationist views, but think about this: In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. Actually this is such an article. If any article should discuss whether there are scientists that are not evolutionists, it is this article.

Again, this is not what I'm aiming at. But it just supports my view that WP:UNDUE is not applicable here. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

But it is applicable since we already acknowledge that a tiny minority exists. We quote the source's specific 97% figure in our ref. At most, we could also utilize that figure in the text if it wouldn't be too awkward. But we don't state "all" and "definitely". We say "overwhelming majority", "implies" (which, again, allows for the possibility of a small percentage whose view differs) and then specify the 97% (aka an overwhelming majority but not all) in a quote in the ref. I think you might be interpreting this text wildly differently than we are. I read the related sentence and interpret it to mean "most but not all". That is, in fact, the only logical way to interpret the statement as it stands, since it doesn't muck about with any overly wordy fluff. Millahnna (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

132.229.117.120:

1. I made no threat -- please cease and desist misrepresenting my comments.
2. Your claim that you are not edit-warring is blatantly contradicted by this article's edit-history.
3. No I AM NOT^{Yes, I'm shouting -- you misrepresent what I say and I'LL DAMN WELL SHOUT AT YOU!} claiming "that in some situations Wikipedia must deliberately represent facts inaccurately because an accurate representation of a fact will put undue weight" -- I am stating that in such situations it gives a more inaccurate impression, due to excessive coverage, to harp on endlessly about a "tiny minority" exception to the wider point. We quite frankly should not spend more than about 3% of the time discussing the 3% who dissent. It warrants only the barest of mentions -- not repeated exception/equivocation/etc of the wider point to make explicit room for them.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

We cite a reliable source stating that "to say a person is a scientist encompasses the fact that he or she is an evolutionist", which the lead cautiously states as "to say someone is a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views". We don't say that there might not be the odd scientist who disputes evolutionary views, we give due weight to the overwhelming majority without giving undue weight to a tiny minority. One correction to Hrafn, there's no evidence of there being "3% who dissent" as the survey only mentions the 97% who said that humans and other living things have evolved over time. The other 3% might have said "don't know". . . dave souza, talk 11:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I covered that with my "(3%) may not" at the top -- but it gets hard to keep track of making sure that this point propagates into every iteration of the argument. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Hrafn: then it turns out that we agree really on a lot of things - at least, if we do some noise reduction.

What you are actually afraid for is excessive coverage and harping on endlessly. If that's the whole point, I don't see why you put so much weight on only a few words extra or less. My last suggestion did affect the length and the content of the article for less than 3%... At this moment I don't exactly understand what you are so excited about, unless I assume that you are leaping into some absurdities as I have suggested above.

What I'm afraid for is putting majority opinions forward as a fact. I surely agree that very minor opinions deserve very minor attention, but they should not be totally hided behind a curtain of false generalizations. Do not always attempt to make the world simpler than it is, that's my philosophy. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

They aren't hidden. They are stated, upfront, in plain english. Millahnna (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No we don't agree. "Therefore it has been stated that being a scientist..." (i) is very clumsy wording. (ii) Unnecessary, heavy-handed and undue emphasis on equivocation, when the the fact that a tiny minority dissent exists has already been indicated ("overwhelming majority" not unanimity). (iii) The word "implies" is used, allowing for a small degree (i.e.3%) of fuzziness, as opposed to 'compels', 'ensures', etc which would indicate a complete lack of dissent.
Further emphasis on this 3% quite simply is not warranted -- particularly when we don't even know what it is exactly that this 3% believes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize...

...for slipping into an editwar (see my user talk page) and for being sometimes a bit harsh during this discussion. I see that the word implies has a weaker connotation than I thought as a non-native speaker. I feel that we can reach consensus without changing much in the article.

But I'm not yet entirely comfortable with the status quo. I still feel an ambiguity when I ponder about the statement being a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views. I see two possible implications of this statement:

1. scientists that don't accept evolution form a negligible minority - I agree to this (as long as I'm not confronted with evidence on the contrary). But if that's the meaning, it is just double with the statement that an overwhelming majority of scientists accepts evolution. If you have to assume that this statement is not redundant, there must be a second meaning:
2. in order to be qualified as a scientist, you are required to accept evolution. This is just pigeonholing. We must avoid this implication.

132.229.117.120 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

1. in order to be qualified as a scientist, you are required to accept evolution. This is just pigeonholing. We must avoid this implication.

We aren't making this implication. You're reversing the cause and effect in the concepts, I think. It's not a requirement of being a scientist (barring certain disciplines I would assume) that one accepts evolution. It is the result of being a scientist that most accept evolution. This could be because their own research involves that field of study or because, even though their work is not directly related to evolution, they understand the scientific method and peer review process in such a way that they trust the current scientific consensus regarding the issue. That was probably a gross oversimplification on my part. I'm not a scientist by any stretch; just a nerd who reads a fair amount of scientific papers (with my dictionary handy) when I can get my hands on them so the real science geeks can correct my on the fine points. I'm just trying to simplify it in the hopes that you'll see how you're switching the logic backwards. A is not required for B; it's that B leads most to A. I'm totally not helping am I? Millahnna (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)But we go with what the reliable sources say, not what "implications" we draw from it. To do the latter is WP:Synthesis. And speaking for myself, I don't take your #2 as implied by the statement. Rather I would take the implication, in order to think like a scientist, you have to base your conclusions on consistency with empirical data, not religious dogma. This viewpoint would be widely held both by scientists and philosophers of science, and is fully supported by the scientific method. And if somebody doesn't follow the scientific method, it's rather hard to take them seriously as a scientist -- no matter how many pieces of paper they have, or how many letters they have after their name. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Millahna (and Hrafn), evolution acceptance is often a result of scientific thinking, while rejection often results from religious beliefs. And I want to propose to include that more clearly into the article. Now there is not enough clarity why a scientists is very probably also an "evolutionist". 132.229.117.120 (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to point out that "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" means not to mention specific claims/positions of that certain minority, not to deny their existence or to distort the real coverage of another position, which is what you're basicly doing by transforming "almost all/the overwhelming majority" (<100%) into "all" (100%).

The sentence "to say someone is a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views" is obviously aimed at creationists, as most of the article. If the meaning of the term "imply" is meant to be "generaly involves" then the two disputed sentences really say the same thing, as 132.229.117.120 pointed out, so it is completely redundant and should be deleted, but its true purpose is the more subtle one (not so subtle though) pointed by the same user: "in order to be qualified as a scientist, you are required to accept evolution", for which some users around here will cling on it and won't allow it to be deleted. --ANDROBETA 20:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"widely held 19th-century belief" vs. "widely accepted 19th-century idea"

With reference to this change, and several other attempts by the same editor to change "widely held 19th-century belief" to "widely accepted 19th-century idea". The former suggests (correctly) that it was believed in the 19th century but is now known to be inaccurate. The latter suggests it is still accepted. That's why it should stay as "widely held 19th-century belief". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that "belief" has the correct connotation on this point. Yobol (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Snalwibma, we already discussed everything that could be discussed about this in the previous discussion. I know that you are only bringing this up because you know that whatever I say there are a bunch of users against me, who will engage in a deplorable attempt of cheap manipulation and will throw a pile of nonsensical comments and impose their numeric superiority, superiority that established the current form of this stupidly written article. So I will not make the mistake of trying to have a reasonable conversation again because I know you are not capable of such a thing, my efforts would be in vain, I would only waste my time.

In this group I'm talking about, I identified two weird types of users that gave the article the aspect of a battlefield with subtle insinuations between two ideologies: frustrated evolutionists and frustrated creationists. The creationists, frustrated because their ideology is tagged as being only a belief, with no real scientific evidence, try to make the concepts of evolution (comprised by the term evolutionism according to any dictionary, as referenced above, and used as such by creationists) seem a belief (with the religious connotation) as well, so they label it as such, along with referencing outdated hypotheses or misinterpreting current scientific data. And of course, in the creationist point of view to be an evolutionist (blasphemous, ignorant) is a very bad ting, so the word has a bad meaning, as is the case for the other side, or for every two hating opponent sides. The evolutionists, frustrated of this, kind of fall in the trap and adopt a fairly ridiculous position, they abnegate the terms evolutionism and evolutionist, and cling to the term evolution supposing that in this way they resolve the problem. So the evolutionists transform the "creationism - evolutionism" controvery into "creationism - evolution" controversy, in response, the creationists adapt it to "creation - evolution" to keep up with the battle.

So in this article, the creationists like the belief definition because it corresponds with their position/raid on evolution(ism), the evolutionists like the belief definition because it supports their abnegation movement. Only that evolutionism is not about this pitiful subject... --ANDROBETA 00:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Androbeta - How dare you pretend to know my motives or beliefs, and how dare you suggest that I am not capable of reason. The funny thing is that in your version, I actually have more of a problem with "accepted" than with "idea". To my ears, "widely held" means that it was once held, while "widely accepted" seems to suggest that it is now accepted. I feel less strongly about belief vs. idea, though I do think the former is better. But, on this specific point, please read and try to understand the opening sentence of the article, and you will see that what you say above is almost wholly irrelevant. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 05:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be clearer to say "refers... specifically to a belief, widely held in the 19th century, that organisms are..." or "refers... specifically to a belief, widely accepted in the 19th century, that organisms are..." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionist not a term used by scientists?

Hi all,

I agree that in general "evolutionist" is not a term that one hears on the mouth of scientists too often. However, I've heard Richard Dawkins use the term to refer to himself in interviews, (sorry I can't remember exactly where, think it was The Four Horsemen convo, I'll look for the source) also if you check Talk:David Sloan Wilson you'll find a source mentioned where he refers to himself as an evolutionist. I also think I may have heard the term self-referentially on the lips of Steven Pinker. I'll see if I can source this stuff. I only bring it up because it seems that the term may be gaining new traction among scientists in a modern meaning of "a person advocating or espousing evolution by natural selection", bereft of any social-darwinist or derogatory creationist undertones.--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think PZ Meyers may have referenced this concept in passing on his blog a year or two ago (not certain and also not sure we could use such a thing anyway, jumping off point for your research maybe?). Because now that you mention it, Dawkins doing so does ring a bell. This is purely my interpretation based on what you wrote (and thus, in no way usable on the article at all) but I'm wondering if it's possible that this is a reactionary thing. Like some of the scientists who are also "New Atheists" are coopting the term from their critics. If that is the case, and if there are WP:RS covering the concept, it might be an interesting point to include. Again though, this is totally just me speculating. I thought I'd throw it out there for your source search though in case you see something usable that hits the same idea. I'll go back to my lurking and occasional vandal reversion now. Millahnna (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I realize this is an ancient thread but thought I'd mention that I ended up here because someone used the term "evolutionist" and I honestly wasn't certain what they meant without looking it up. I'm a scientist, though not in anthropology or biology; however, I have worked for a biologist who did not believe in evolution even he did not use this term openly. I'd be pretty surprised to hear it outside the context of myth/science debates. TricksterWolf (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The claim is at best original research, but it's not even that, it's just an uninformed claim of some random editor. It should have been ripped out of the article years ago. For now I've tagged it -- perhaps that will encourage someone to find reliable sources that discuss the use of the word. -- Jibal (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Also noting that the origin of this article was a WP:POVFORK of evolution (Special:Permalink/249407). —PaleoNeonate – 11:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This article should be protected.

It is controversial — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberaccount (talk • contribs) 22:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

~~~~ I agree. This is something to protect and talk about. NotArmandoG (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolutionism. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091108193045/http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf to http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf

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) 14:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

MfD for Draft:Atheistic evolution

As an FYI, the MfD for Draft:Atheistic evolution was closed as a redirect here without deletion. Editors may be interested in the sourcing under the redirect for possible integration here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)