Principle 1 - allow all individual articles to exist in peace and to present the viewpoints unhindered by extensive rebuttals or criticisms. Evolution talks about the science of evolution and related discussions. Creationism (and sub-branches) describe the principles of each thought system, and give points of distinction with other related systems (non-scientific ones). Creationism does not need to be contrasted with "Evolution" any more than to note that it is in marked contrast - we don't need 45 lines of debate.
Principle 2 - have articles that specifically deal with the "Debates" located on pages that are clearly marked as such. The debates and refutations are clearly worthy topics in their own right, and are distinct from the individual schools of thought. Most of us here are evolutionists, so this is a case where we REALLY have to observe NPOV - we cannot pronounce evolution to be "correct".
As a beginning outline I propose pages for:
Acknowledgement of the existence of the debates can be handled by appropriate links from all "school of thought" pages.
Suggestions for the above are welcome. - MMGB
I respectfully disagree. None of us here belong to a religion called "Evolutionism", and therefore none of us are "evolutionists". We simply are educated and literaye. Must we rewrite all our entries on the Earth's topology and geography to give equal time and space to those who say that the Earth is flat (some still do say this!) Wouldn't that be a truly NPOV? Should we rewrite all the entries on geology and the related sciences to say that it is only a "theory" that our world is 4.5 billion years old, and that it is equally valid to say that the world really is only 6000 years old, as fundamentalist Jews and Christians claim? No. At some point, an Encyclopaedia becomes worthless if it accepts such extreme relativism. The standard proposed has two logical consequences: (A) Ignore the NPOV, except when it comes to what Chrisitians say about evolution, but this is not fair; or (B) insist on this version of NPOV for the bizarre claims about science made by every religion and cult. Should the many scinece entries of Wikipedia be rewritten to give equal credence to the claims of L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, or the Nation of Islam's odd views about the creation of thr world? Why single out only evolution, and only Christianity? We can - and must - point out that evolution is a scientifically proven fact. The fact that some people have positions to the contrary is a religious position, but that belongs in a side-entry on faith. RK
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)