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 amateurish), 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 choppiness 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)

Suggestions

1. One of the main things that really bothers me about the Theory of evolution page is the "Further Reading (including free on-line versions)" section. As of 4-04-07 every one of the books listed has an anti-evolution slant to them. For the article to be truly balanced I believe that there needs to be an equal amount of pro-evolution books listed. Sulgran 01:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

There will be a section of works on each. For example, pro-evolution will have a listing of works by Stephen Jay Gould, Bob Bakker, Darwin, Huxley, etc, and the creation will have works by Morris, Gish, and others. As much as possible I want to see works done by those who are clear experts in the field, and which can be found in many libraries across the country. If there are sources which are not used, then a "for further reading" section will be added. Such standards will also include links.

I'm also going to avoid the "pro-" or "anti-" words as well; they each involve a negative as well as a personal tone, and we have to be as neutral as possible. Karajou 08:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)