Talk:Creation and evolution in public education

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 August 2020 and 5 September 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Depaek.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Geography...

There may be some convention on this so I haven't done an edit, but why, if Turkey is in Europe, is Russia in Asia? Especially considering that the only piece in the Russia section is about St. Petersburg... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.124.48 (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ten countries poll, sciences education

An article was brought up in Talk:Objections to evolution. It speaks to evolutions acceptance among those educated / exposed to it. - RoyBoy 16:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Creationists notch big win in Tennessee

This is only a blog, but there might be reliable sources out there. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20052007-501465.html Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Louisiana section unsourced

Regarding this edit, reverted by Orangemarlin, I agree that the Louisiana section warrants attention. While 75.50.99.94 removed the section for alleged POV issues, my concern is that the section has no citation and appears to be unsourced. I don't see a POV issue with the claim as written, so long as it is supported and appropriately channels the source's POV. If it's a state bill then surely it has been discussed by mainstream or otherwise notable sources. If no source can be identified, that section needs to be removed on grounds of original research, no matter the degree of its neutrality. If I find time, I will help look for one to use. John Shandy` • talk 05:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A far-more-detailed treatment, with sources, is given at Academic Freedom bills#Louisiana act. As far as I can see it covers all the material covered here. I'm placing a {{further}} tag referencing that article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Theistic evolution

Regarding this edit which reverted an IP's addition of theistic evolution, I think there is confusion on part of Charlesdrakew. I don't think the IP was intending to give an example of a religion that accepts evolution, but was meaning to introduce theistic evolution because, as the article reads "While some religions do not have theological objections to the modern evolutionary synthesis as an explanation for the present form of life on Earth...", it is true that some religions (e.g. the Catholic Church, per Pope John Paul II#Evolution & Catholic Church and evolution) have accepted evolution by Darwinian natural selection. This would be a notable point to add to that paragraph, and wikilinking to theistic evolution as well would be appropriate. We can add the references from the articles I've mentioned here and cite them in this article. John Shandy` • talk 13:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

God vs. Darwin lawsuit Russia

The section Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#Russia appears to be a good bit out of date, I assume the lawsuit would be over by now. If someone can read russian it might be easier for them to find more up to the date sources (I couldn't find anything in English). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolution 1580

I have reverted the recent rewrite for the following reasons:

• Overuse of primary sources. This resulted in a section that concentrated too heavily on the bureaucratic minutiae of the process.
• Use of unreliable sources, such as UD & CMI.
• Simple listing of the WP:SECONDARY sources, rather than actually making use of them: "Deutsche Welle[60], International Society for Science and Religion[61], Committee for Sceptical Inquiry[62], Radio Vaticana[63] and Die Welt[64]"

An expansion based upon the contents of these secondary sources would be useful. I would also recommend against using the acronym PACE in the section heading -- it has far to many different meanings to be particularly helpful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(Parenthetically, I would point out that I made very clear the need for "sufficient secondary-sourced material" in earlier discussion of this topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC) )

First you suggest to put the information here and recognize that the sources I've mentioned could justify the expansion of that section - now you delete that information from the article with a vague cliam that it's baly written... Strange.

In this specific context, PACE documents (primary sources) are the safest for referring to official texts of the motion of recommendation, reports and resolution (full texts, not misundersttod by a journalist - and I did not insert any interpretation of those texts which would need secondary sources). For some aspects, primary sources seeem to be also the only ones (secondary sources mention the general division of votes - but I do not see among them any which would show specifically, which delegates voted in favour and wich - against the resolution). That may seem to be "bureaucratic minutiae" - but that is the struggle for content, important when writing about a text adopted by a parliamentary assembly.Fuseau (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Those sources (UD, CMI, Yahya) are not used to support some scientific point where they have proven themselves questionable - they just show the wide reaction of the creationists/ID proponents to the resolution. Do you question that reaction to a document is suitable to describe when writing about that document?

Those sources were mentioned, first of all, to satisfy your demands for establishing notability. One can of course describe in a more detailed way what they tell (in some cases, however, that would mean retelling resolution - I doubt whether that's needed).

Mentioning PACE is not ideal, but "Council of Europe" is too vague. There are different bodies in the CoE, and they might have different opinions.Fuseau (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

1. First, I would point out that I objected to the over-use of primary sources on The dangers of creationism in education‎, so you should not be surprised that I object to their over-use here.
2. Secondly', what I suggested was specifically SECONDARY sourced material -- so you should not be surprised that I reverted an expansion that contained none (just a listing of the secondary sources).
3. Thirdly, such paper-pushing is generally considered to be a quite irrelevant level of detail.
4. Fourthly, it is NOT sufficient simply to list independent sources to meet WP:Notability, you have to demonstrate that they offer "significant coverage", by actually stating what they say about the topic (my suspicion is that they don't actually say much).
5. Fifthly, WP:WEIGHT only allows for weight to be given to viewpoints contained in reliable sources. WP:ABOUTSELF specifically forbids the use of self-published and/or questionable sources for opinions about third-party topics.
6. Sixthly, very few readers will have heard of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (a fairly obscure, archaic, redundant & toothless body), let alone realise that the acronym PACE refers to it. Therefore the inclusion of this acronym in the section title is singularly uninformative. As it is one of only "two statutory organs of the Council of Europe", the slight vagueness is acceptable, especially as it is cleared up by the opening sentence of the section.

Rewrite to give emphasis to secondary sources. Do not include paper-pushing or opinions not found in reliable sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I would note that the only secondary coverage actually contained in the article to date is "the characterization of evolution as more than a hypothesis by the pope Benedict XVI". This section clearly is not currently "based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", s required by policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources

1. I would question whether www.breakingchristiannews.com is sufficiently reliable a source that it can be used beyond the constraints of WP:ABOUTSELF.
2. I fail to see how an article from the Evangelical Church in Germany's own website is a secondary source on an Evangelical Church in Germany conference.
3. I continue to have concerns over how having two full sections based entirely on primary sources complies with WP:PSTS, or is needed.

I have raised these concerns on WP:RSN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Darwinism" under communism

I would note that Darwinian evolution was regarded as too elitistly heditarian (survival of those with the best genes) by many communists, who favoured a more Lamarckian view of evolution. The most prominent example of this was Stalin's promotion of Lysenkoism. The views of the "east European deputies" are therefore misleading and should not be stated baldly as though factual. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Lysenkoism was really anti-darwinist, but it didn't last a bigger part of "real socialism" times in Eastern Europe (from 30ies to 50ies). Those deputies probably remembered later time, when Darwinian evolution wasn't denied. Anyway, I've carefully put that quote in quotation marks and the quote itself doesn't say those delegates to be right - Reuters just says that they "recalled" certain information. They might be mistaken - its not our business to define it in the given case. We just show (as did Reuters, a reliable secondary source) their statements in relation to resisting Lengagne report, be those delegates factually accurate or not.Fuseau (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

1. The point remains that Darwinian evolution conflicts too much with the Marxist worldview for it to be "a favorite theory" in whichever period (and I would point out that "a favorite theory" to merely "wasn't denied" is massively moving the goalposts). The deputies appear to be engaging in some rather dubious guilt-by-association.
2. Placing a factual claim in quotation marks does not obviate the fact that it is highly misleading. We can reliably confirm that they said it, however we have sufficient reason to believe that what they said has little probative value, and therefore that inclusion of this quote will not in fact add to readers' accurate understanding of the topic.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Darwinian evolution conflicts too much with the Marxist worldview I suspect you confuse the Lysenkoism with the Marxist worldview. If you take a look at Dialectics of Nature, you'll find the high respect for Darwinism shown by Engels.
2. It's very speculative to call that statement misleading (see above and in the next section on this talk page). And the inclusion of that quote is helpful for the readers, since it gives information on the stated motivation of delegates voting against (be they sincere or not - it's not Wikipedia's business)Fuseau (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. An example of Soviet recognition of Darwin's legacy: The Origin (novel) was published by in Moscow by Political Literature Publishing in 1983 in the series "Library of Atheist Literature" (drawing 200 000). One can see the impressum here, with some data in English. Fuseau (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution 1580

1. Is the level of (mainly primary sourced) coverage of the 'drafting and adoption' of this resolution excessive? Particularly with view to the Parliamentary Assembly's lack of prominence, and purely advisory nature. Such primary-sourced details would most probably be available for many (most?) of the other sections, but has not been included.
2. Is the level of quotation from the resolution excessive (given similar considerations)?
3. Is it appropriate to include the factual claim "that Darwinian evolution was a favorite theory of their former communist rulers" given clear evidence of communist distaste for Darwinian evolution (e.g. Lysenkoism), even in quotation marks? Does WP:REDFLAG apply?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

1. No. Primary sources are suitable in the specific case (votes divisions, amendments and similar details aren't usually covered by news agencies etc, but are significant when writing about a document). PACE is prominent (one of two principal bodies of the Council of Europe, including representatives from 47 states; its resolutions are advisory, but so are Category:United Nations General Assembly resolutions) and its website is reliable. The reason of different level of details between sections is this article is User:Hrafn's resistence to existence of a separate article on the resolution, despite its existing in fr.wiki and ru.wiki
2. That can be discussed. Which quotation do you consider to be excessive?
3. a) That's a quotation, not a claim by Wikipedia; the article doesn't state whether the quote is right or wrong. b) If one spoke about the short time of Lysenkoism (most of which - until 1945 - didn't include Communist rule in Poland, Hungary, Romania, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia etc), this statement would be wrong. Speaking of the longer time period between mid-50ies and 1989, however, it is an accurate desciption (atheistic Soviet ideology liked to use resistance of some churches to Darwinism in its anti-religious propaganda; I can point to printed sources in Russian). [[User:|Fuseau]] (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• RfC Comment. I came here in response to the RfC notice. It looks to me like this is a content dispute between just two editors. It does seem to me that the section in question is overly reliant on primary sources, and needs to be shortened to better reflect secondary sources. I also detect a tone of "guilt by association", whereby teaching evolution is equated with totalitarianism. It's one thing to document that this position has been taken by some parties involved with the debate about teaching evolution in Europe, but the amount of weight given the position needs to be in keeping with how secondary sources have treated it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• RfC Comment. Also responding to RfC-bot notice. I'm broadly in agreement with Tryptofish's comments. I don't believe there is much at fault with the content here though. I think the use of primary sources has been largely confined to appropriate situations, but it would be worth having more editors analyse the tone of the section in connection with the secondary sources to ensure the section is in keeping with what the the secondary sources and ensure there's no breach of WP:NOR here. --Topperfalkon (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Could you please clarify your comment: you start by stating "I'm broadly in agreement with Tryptofish's comments", but then go on to state conclusions that appear to be the opposite of Tryptofish's. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Rfc Comment. Largely agree with Fuseau.

1. As long as primary material is relevant and produced in appropriate context, it would take serious excess to justify objection. Accordingly these quotes don't seem anywhere near excessive. They certainly did not take long to read.
2. Similarly, fulminating against a couple of paragraphs of direct quotation (assuming that the quotes are essentially accurate) would be pointless and excessive; the material does not suggest to me that the Parliamentary Assembly delegates understood the issues, either evolutionary or educational, any better than most politicians, but I am not inclined to waste my time and emotional resources by going to the source myself just to engage in yet another holy war against WPOR.
3. Discussion of point 3 in the RFC amounts to discussion of idealistic baggage that has little to do with either the theme or the resolution. Certainly nothing in the article suggested any NPOV on the part of WP. If anyone disagrees and can mend the situation without provoking rival amendments, let him adorn the article with a few disclaimers to strengthen the awareness of the reader that WP is not taking sides for or against the wording of the resolution.

IMO, storm in teacup. Recommend no change in line with the RFC. I'd rather discuss the science, philosophy and didactics, which would be out of place here, it seems to me. JonRichfield (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Rfc Comment per bot request.

1. I do not believe the primary sources are misplaced in this section. The inclusion of secondary sources would strengthen the content, but their absence does not leave the content unverifiable.
2. The quotes I observed do not appear excessive nor tailored to a specific end. I am also assuming fidelity in transcribing the quotes.
3. The particular quote appears mislabeled as dubious. This does not imply I agree with its premise, but rather that it faithfully represents the quote as it appears in the source. For balance, a proportionately opposing view would better illustrate contention. The tagging as dubious implies nefarious intent which I do not see.

These are the opinions gleaned by a cursory read, and constitute my impressions IAW policy. My76Strat (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Rfc Comment per bot request.

1. Pretty blatantly excessive. Obvious undue weight granted to this "resolution"
2. See comment above.
3. Frankly I'd just exclude the quote while paring down the rest of the section. I don't think it really provides much clarity or context. Additionally the "reuters noted" language is childish and unencyclopedic. NickCT (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• • • Could you possibly add some argumentation? Currently your response is limited to labels: emotional ("Pretty blatantly", "Obvious", "resolution" in quotation marks, "childish") and non-emotional, but supported by emotional evaluations only ("excessive", "undue weight", "unencyclopedic"), which aren't convincing, to say the least.Fuseau (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Generally agree with Hrafn. "Excessive" seems to me a bit excessive in describing just over a screenful of properly sourced material in a much longer article. Authors should be able to assume a reasonable attention span in readers at this level. Anyway, the section was sufficiently split into subsections to make it easy for readers to skip the boring bits. Nevertheless though to my mind the content does not present much of a problem, the writing is clumsy and makes it confusing for readers unfamiliar with the material to follow the facts or grasp the thread. I certainly struggled, even after a couple of rereads. I grant that I have at most a feeble grasp of such matters as the mindsets behind the politics of fundamentalism, but no feebler than the majority of interested readers, so I strongly urge that someone does a bit of carefully constructive conditioning of the account. I would willingly do it myself, but I feel ill-equipped. OTOH, if whoever does the job would like me to put my effort where my mouth is, I don't mind assisting on request. JonRichfield (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Could you please clarify your comment: you start by stating "Generally agree with Hrafn", but then go on to state conclusions that appear to be the opposite of Hrafn's (disagreeing with his evaluation of drafting coverage and quotes as "excessive" - Parts 1 and 2 of Hrafn's criticism, and not supporting his contesting the specific quote on Eastern Europe), while raising other issues. Fuseau (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Ooops! Sorry; I got the sigs confused. I meant Fuseau! Oh well, at least the sense was consistent, if inverted! The "other issues" as I have mentioned them though, I still stand by. JonRichfield (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• User:Hrafn, I hope you are now satisfied that the statement you've tagged is accurate, not dubious? Fuseau (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

FSM bigotry

I hope that Portillo is not assuming personal authority in matters concerning the intrinsic sense of serious articles. He has now twice arbitrarily deleted a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster article, first on the grounds that he had labelled it as garbage, apparently unread or uncomprehended or both, and then because he said it had nothing to do with this article. I have reverted both his deletions, the second time warning him that I shall report him if he repeats his action, and urging him to take it to this talk page instead. (I at least assumed no such authority as he did for his own assertions!)

What T's me off about this is not whether his view has any merit or not (I never wrote, nor to my memory contributed to the FSM article, nor yet linked it to this article, nor even was terribly interested in it as such), but the fact that though it is a serious article, seriously discussed, and seriously linked to in a serious context, Portillo assumed the right to scrap the link on no more substantial justification than his own unsupported and disputed insights. If Portillo reads this, I hope that he will respond here rather than edit warring, and makes some better points than blank assertions such as those accompanying his recent two deletions. JonRichfield (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Portillo was unjustified in removing the reference. Both of his edit summaries suggests that he is not familiar with the nature and history of FSM. It is clearly not "garbage", and it most certainly does have to do with the subject of this article.

@Portillo, please take the time to read the {Flying Spaghetti Monster article. If you still disagree about the relevance, please discuss it here before reverting again. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Links mostly about Muslim countries

I post a couple of links about evolution education in different countries here for future use and to give other editors a chance to object if they consider them unreliable or undue, before I add any text to the article: http://harvard.academia.edu/EBurton/Papers/902459/Evolution_Education_in_Muslim_States_Iran_and_Saudi_Arabia_Compared http://www.labtimes.org/labtimes/issues/lt2009/lt01/lt_2009_01_28_29.pdf Sjö (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Texas' Impact and the Dover Trial

With the power that the Texas school board has to determine which books will likely enter into schools outside of Texas, shouldn't there be more said about the members current political stances. For example, "I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state" (David Bradley, Texas State Board of Education). -http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?_r=0

Also, there seems to be no mention of the Dover trial. It could easily link to the existing page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.250.187 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal in VA?

Is creationism taught in public schools in Virginia? I am writing a paper and can't find any information on it. Football1607 (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Football1607

smithsonian EL

See basically done discussion here Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creation and evolution in public education. 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/20130307233347/http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11751&Language=en to http://www.assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11751&Language=EN

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Flowers?

Why does the Life Timeline chart show Flowers as occurring more recently than Mammals? Shouldn't this be Primates? Musanim (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It is correct. Flowers are recent. Check out the relevant articles.Charles (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow. You're right. Thanks, Charles. I assumed that flowers went as far back as bees, but I now see I was wrong. Amazing. Musanim (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creation and evolution in public education. 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/20110716061337/http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsletterJanuary2008Creationism.html to http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2008/NewsletterJanuary2008Creationism.html

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) 08:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Romania & evolution

So, it seems teaching evolution in Romania was quietly discontinued around 2006-07, shortly reintroduced for 2 semesters in more vague and general terms and then dropped again, at least according to the Romanian wiki [1] . It's also relevant, that even in the year it survived, it was seemingly taught only in upper school any more (people drop out earlier or go on to the second educational track in significant amounts so the effect is higher in RO than it would be in any other Western country).

I was not able to find any good source to confirm (googled the big news outlets looked for key terms in politician's tweets; repeated for key terms in Romanian, French, German -- nada. The two sources in the article seem "legit", no idea how well those sites monitor journalistic standards). Probably somebody actually has to go through the education ministry's (mostly offline?) archive to confirm when and what exactly was being taught. Who did separation of church and education ever work well for... /s LlllllllIl (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Teaching the Bible in public schools

Hey, I think Wikipedia may be lacking an important page, namely a page on efforts to include teaching the Bible in public schools in the USA. Here's the page of a representative who has put forth a bill in Florida to implement such classes: Kimberly Daniels. It is an interesting topic. In an ideal world, I would personally support having this kind of class, but my guess is that such classes would become preaching classes & an automatic A if you put in a little work (that's where my bias would lead me). Is there any page that I can add information about "The Bible in public education"? Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)