Conservapedia talk:Evolution two

Ground Rules:

• Number one is no fighting. That's just cut and dry, and it just gets nowhere.
• Number two is the article has to be written to allow the student reader to make his or her mind up as to the validity of the subject. This means that we cannot call a theory a fact. It also means that each article sub-heading must be written concisely, informatively, and well (nothing choppy and amatuerish), and the source material must be of such that the reader can go to it with confidence.
• Number three is the source material itself; I prefer books on the subject, and I encourage the use of books throughout. Online sources are also fine. But for both, let's stick with those authors who are clear experts in their field, and avoid those sites which don't have that authoritative clarity...in short, avoid the non-experts like the plague.
• The article itself should be done in general terms, similar to that which is found in a college textbook on biology. That way it wont get too top-heavy. But we'll still experiment to see which is best for the page.

• This article will NOT be locked.

No one else can edit. I'm sorry about saying that, but it's is to avoid confusion and choppyness in the article itself (it may change later). If there are those who wish to participate you may do so, but by doing a cut-and-paste proposal here, or by providing good source material that can benefit the article (evolution as well as creation). Do not get angry if what you submitted is not chosen; this is done for space only, but it will still be included as a reference. Karajou 00:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)