Talk:Theory - Revision history

Czolgolz: /* My two cents */

2007-04-20T15:40:50Z

My two cents

Ed Poor: too restrictive

2007-04-09T16:26:54Z

too restrictive

Ed Poor: /* Where the controversy is - and what it's about */ visit Debate topics, if you're that exercised

2007-04-03T13:42:31Z

Where the controversy is - and what it's about: visit Debate topics, if you're that exercised

Dimensio: /* Where the controversy is - and what it's about */

2007-04-03T13:38:18Z

Where the controversy is - and what it's about

Ed Poor: /* Where the controversy is - and what it's about */ Starting to lost the train of thought here. Maybe it's the clam chowder I just had?

2007-03-30T23:17:09Z

Where the controversy is - and what it's about: Starting to lost the train of thought here. Maybe it's the clam chowder I just had?

Palmd001 at 23:11, March 30, 2007

2007-03-30T23:11:34Z

Tims: /* Where the controversy is - and what it's about */

2007-03-30T19:35:50Z

Where the controversy is - and what it's about

Tims: /* Where the controversy is - and what it's about */

2007-03-30T19:33:11Z

Where the controversy is - and what it's about

Palmd001: /* Where the controversy is - and what it's about */

2007-03-30T19:26:09Z

Where the controversy is - and what it's about

Palmd001: /* Where the controversy is - and what it's about */

2007-03-30T19:25:13Z

Where the controversy is - and what it's about

@@ Line 123: / Line 123: @@
 Okay, I took out this:
-: The [[Theory of Evolution]] includes [[microevolution]] (change in allele frequency over time), which is well-confirmed, and the idea that there existed a universal common ancestor for all life on Earth, which remains controversial. {{fact}}
+: The [[Theory of Evolution]] includes [[microevolution]] (change in allele frequency over time), which is well-confirmed, and the idea that there existed a universal common ancestor for all life on Earth, which remains controversial.
 I am not sure what the problem is. Doesn't everyone agree that microevolution is well-confirmed? Hardly anyone claims that the universal common ancestor is a proved fact. Likely hypothesis maybe, but not well-confirmed. When the pro-evolution people say that evolution is a fact, they are talking about microevolution, not the existence of a universal common ancestor.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:26, April 9, 2007
Line 251:		Line 251:

	::You might want to visit [[Debate topics]], if you're that exercised about it. This page is for suggestions to improve the [[Theory]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)		::You might want to visit [[Debate topics]], if you're that exercised about it. This page is for suggestions to improve the [[Theory]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	==Scientific Theory==
		+
		+	Cut:
		+
		+	:A scientific theory is a model or framework for describing a related set of natural or social behaviors or observations.
		+
		+	This seems too restrictive to me. Anyway, it's unsourced. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:42, April 3, 2007
Line 249:		Line 249:

	:Do we have another creationist repeating the shameless lie that all who accept evolution as valid are "liberals?" Have creationists no shame? [[User:Dimensio\|Dimensio]] 09:37, 3 April 2007		:Do we have another creationist repeating the shameless lie that all who accept evolution as valid are "liberals?" Have creationists no shame? [[User:Dimensio\|Dimensio]] 09:37, 3 April 2007
		+
		+	::You might want to visit [[Debate topics]], if you're that exercised about it. This page is for suggestions to improve the [[Theory]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, April 3, 2007
Line 247:		Line 247:

	:Well, what does our [[scientific method]] article say about theories and explanations, hypotheses and falsifiablity, drawing corallary conclusions and testing them against observations?		:Well, what does our [[scientific method]] article say about theories and explanations, hypotheses and falsifiablity, drawing corallary conclusions and testing them against observations?
		+
		+	:Do we have another creationist repeating the shameless lie that all who accept evolution as valid are "liberals?" Have creationists no shame? [[User:Dimensio\|Dimensio]] 09:37, 3 April 2007

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:17, March 30, 2007
Line 245:		Line 245:

	Ed, as you have generally been a fairly moderate voice of reason, perhaps you can mediate a bit. THe whole "evolutionists promote this idea, see this NYT article" should go, as well as the rest of the little debate, and moved elsewhere (not deleted from CP). We should go with the simple definitions above. IMHO.--[[User:palmd001\|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001\|talk]]</sup> 19:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)		Ed, as you have generally been a fairly moderate voice of reason, perhaps you can mediate a bit. THe whole "evolutionists promote this idea, see this NYT article" should go, as well as the rest of the little debate, and moved elsewhere (not deleted from CP). We should go with the simple definitions above. IMHO.--[[User:palmd001\|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001\|talk]]</sup> 19:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	:Well, what does our [[scientific method]] article say about theories and explanations, hypotheses and falsifiablity, drawing corallary conclusions and testing them against observations?

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, March 30, 2007
Line 243:		Line 243:

	:I would agree. Ed, we understand that you are on neither side of the TOE and ID debate. However, you are feeding into the argument. There is a major difference between the two thoughts. ID has yet to undergo any scientific research so to list this in the theory article detracts from the main point, as it stands the "theory of ID" is not a theory, it has not been allowed to be tested due to a lack of fundamental definition of what constitutes intelligence and how it could influence diversity.--[[User:Tims\|TimS]] 15:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)		:I would agree. Ed, we understand that you are on neither side of the TOE and ID debate. However, you are feeding into the argument. There is a major difference between the two thoughts. ID has yet to undergo any scientific research so to list this in the theory article detracts from the main point, as it stands the "theory of ID" is not a theory, it has not been allowed to be tested due to a lack of fundamental definition of what constitutes intelligence and how it could influence diversity.--[[User:Tims\|TimS]] 15:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	Ed, as you have generally been a fairly moderate voice of reason, perhaps you can mediate a bit. THe whole "evolutionists promote this idea, see this NYT article" should go, as well as the rest of the little debate, and moved elsewhere (not deleted from CP). We should go with the simple definitions above. IMHO.--[[User:palmd001\|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001\|talk]]</sup> 19:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:35, March 30, 2007
Line 242:		Line 242:
	:Ok, this has nothing to do with ad hominem statements. It really is true that in the vast majority of th scientific community, the definition of theory is not an issue. I am not saying that those who disagree are nut-jobs, just not part of the vast majority of the scientific community. Of course in American culture, there is a HUGE controvery about Evolution vs ID, etc. and in the discourse of the ID partisans, this whole theory definition is an issue. That's why I think the discussion belongs in the IDish articles, not in the definition of theory.--[[User:palmd001\|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001\|talk]]</sup> 15:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)		:Ok, this has nothing to do with ad hominem statements. It really is true that in the vast majority of th scientific community, the definition of theory is not an issue. I am not saying that those who disagree are nut-jobs, just not part of the vast majority of the scientific community. Of course in American culture, there is a HUGE controvery about Evolution vs ID, etc. and in the discourse of the ID partisans, this whole theory definition is an issue. That's why I think the discussion belongs in the IDish articles, not in the definition of theory.--[[User:palmd001\|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001\|talk]]</sup> 15:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

−	:I would agree. Ed, we understand that you are on neither side of the TOE and ID debate. However, you are feeding into the argument. There is a major difference between the two thoughts. ID has yet to undergo any scientific research so to list this in the theory article detracts from the main point.--[[User:Tims\|TimS]] 15:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)	+	:I would agree. Ed, we understand that you are on neither side of the TOE and ID debate. However, you are feeding into the argument. There is a major difference between the two thoughts. ID has yet to undergo any scientific research so to list this in the theory article detracts from the main point, as it stands the "theory of ID" is not a theory, it has not been allowed to be tested due to a lack of fundamental definition of what constitutes intelligence and how it could influence diversity.--[[User:Tims\|TimS]] 15:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:33, March 30, 2007
Line 241:		Line 241:

	:Ok, this has nothing to do with ad hominem statements. It really is true that in the vast majority of th scientific community, the definition of theory is not an issue. I am not saying that those who disagree are nut-jobs, just not part of the vast majority of the scientific community. Of course in American culture, there is a HUGE controvery about Evolution vs ID, etc. and in the discourse of the ID partisans, this whole theory definition is an issue. That's why I think the discussion belongs in the IDish articles, not in the definition of theory.--[[User:palmd001\|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001\|talk]]</sup> 15:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)		:Ok, this has nothing to do with ad hominem statements. It really is true that in the vast majority of th scientific community, the definition of theory is not an issue. I am not saying that those who disagree are nut-jobs, just not part of the vast majority of the scientific community. Of course in American culture, there is a HUGE controvery about Evolution vs ID, etc. and in the discourse of the ID partisans, this whole theory definition is an issue. That's why I think the discussion belongs in the IDish articles, not in the definition of theory.--[[User:palmd001\|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001\|talk]]</sup> 15:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	:I would agree. Ed, we understand that you are on neither side of the TOE and ID debate. However, you are feeding into the argument. There is a major difference between the two thoughts. ID has yet to undergo any scientific research so to list this in the theory article detracts from the main point.--[[User:Tims\|TimS]] 15:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:26, March 30, 2007
Line 240:		Line 240:
	But I'm begging you all to be careful about how you use language. That's all. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] 15:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)		But I'm begging you all to be careful about how you use language. That's all. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] 15:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

−	:Ok, this has nothing to do with ad hominem statements. It really is true that in the vast majority of th scientific community, the definition of theory is not an issue. Of course in American culture, there is a HUGE controvery about Evolution vs ID, etc. and in the discourse of the ID partisans, this whole theory definition is an issue. That's why I think the discussion belongs in the IDish articles, not in the definition of theory.--[[User:palmd001\|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001\|talk]]</sup> 15:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)	+	:Ok, this has nothing to do with ad hominem statements. It really is true that in the vast majority of th scientific community, the definition of theory is not an issue. I am not saying that those who disagree are nut-jobs, just not part of the vast majority of the scientific community. Of course in American culture, there is a HUGE controvery about Evolution vs ID, etc. and in the discourse of the ID partisans, this whole theory definition is an issue. That's why I think the discussion belongs in the IDish articles, not in the definition of theory.--[[User:palmd001\|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001\|talk]]</sup> 15:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, March 30, 2007
Line 239:		Line 239:

	But I'm begging you all to be careful about how you use language. That's all. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] 15:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)		But I'm begging you all to be careful about how you use language. That's all. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] 15:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	:Ok, this has nothing to do with ad hominem statements. It really is true that in the vast majority of th scientific community, the definition of theory is not an issue. Of course in American culture, there is a HUGE controvery about Evolution vs ID, etc. and in the discourse of the ID partisans, this whole theory definition is an issue. That's why I think the discussion belongs in the IDish articles, not in the definition of theory.--[[User:palmd001\|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001\|talk]]</sup> 15:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)