Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups

2838:, I make and stand by my statement that "Young Earth Creationists reject everything that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, science, history, philosophy, math, medicine; you name it, and if it can neither conform to or be distorted in order to conform to a YEC's favorite misinterpretation of the Bible, they will reject it and denounce it as the Devil's excrement" due to both personal observations of Young Earth Creationists demonizing literally everyone who commits the sin of disagreeing with them, i.e., Answers In Genesis staff twisting "I respect all religions" into a tacit confession to promoting Satanically inspired ritual cannibalism, and personal interactions with Young Earth Creationists explicitly belittling me as a hellbound idiot for committing the sin of not believing God magically poofed the world into existence over the course of six 24 hour days exactly 4 to 10,000 years ago, or praying me to go to Hell for committing the sin of pointing out that it's physically impossible for the last mammoths to be frozen by magical falling pieces of magic ice falling from a magical floating ice dome, or even that scientists, in general, are a bunch of Satanic idiots engaged in a centuries-spanning conspiracy to hate Jesus for no profit beyond hating Jesus.-- 2777:, the only way you could make the statement of "Young Earth Creationists reject everything that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, science, history, philosophy, math, medicine; you name it, and if it can neither conform to or be distorted in order to conform to a YEC's favorite misinterpretation of the Bible, they will reject it and denounce it as the Devil's excrement." would be if you were speaking for the entire group. I can't, and haven't heard of anyone who can. You are speaking of a group of individuals who may be influenced to an extent by those who lack sufficient knowledge. Given that, I fail to see how this type of hostility I'm seeing here is in like with the WP purpose. The idea is to provide quality articles. How that is to be accomplished is also defined in the guidelines for editing and conflict resolution. So the internal structure of WP is defined. Now how does that get accomplished amid the emotionally charged dialog I see? There does seem to be some type of conflict, if it is only the apparent hostility being tossed around above. If the idea is to hurl accusation and insult, I see that being accomplished. What I don't see is definitive methodology leading to improvement. Can we get to that? I'm also at least a little surprised that 3206:]. The research was done by 2 authors who looked into the origin in a systematic fashion. Their book must go into the subject more thoroughly, although I haven't read it personally. Those who are interested in knowing more about the topic may want to purchase a copy. The page gives a sequence of development for the Young Earth paradigm from the origin to a point near the present (subject to date of publishing and revision). The authors have found that certain factions or sects of Christianity held to certain literal translations of selected text. This is an excerpt from the author's book: "The “heretical” and “infidel” tendencies of modern geology were roundly condemned by some churchmen, few of whom had any knowledge of geology, although there were a handful of individuals who had produced acceptable field-based studies of regional geology in Great Britain. These “Scriptural geologists,” however, found themselves increasingly marginalized by the vast majority who had extensive working geological knowledge and were now convinced that the Earth is very old." 3781:

inherent impact on the quality of the product. It's the environment that can either help or hinder war or peace. One of the WP guidelines is that we should (as editors) treat one another with a minimum level of respect. When followed, this guideline will lead to development. When not followed, it will most likely lead to some form of anarchy. This didactic principle can be demonstrated as having been constructed from careful analysis of things that lead to success, and things that lead to failure. We desperately need that type of analysis in these times that you infer when "people are at each others throats, and taking advantage of one another mercilessly". WP has already set the stage for success. We need to each play our part in either using the "Divide and Conquer" method, or the "Let's work together to accomplish a worthwhile goal" model.

2959:

sources. Big surprise! I'm seeing Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins show up in the list of references. Eugenie Scott = N.C.S.E. Anyone here affiliated with that group in any way? Just a question. Yes, I move for deletion. The world will not suffer if a list of anti-religion revolutionaries don't have their day in court. If it were a scholarly piece, it would include "Religious Groups", rather than singling out Judeo-Christians. This is the only religious group I see mentioned in the article. Surely this is not the only religious group in the world that rejects evolution theory as given. If it isn't canned, it should be seriously rewritten, as in be serious about covering the topic properly and fairly. WP is not for painting targets on any religion.

3014:

inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve." This is not a recognition of the existence of evolution theory, but the defining of the reliance of evolution theory on Creation, thus, a Creator. In engineering terms, God is the Designer of all self replicating machines (if life forms are to be classified as such). Some people are much smarter than I am, and might view such nonsense as an insult to their intelligence. The problem seems to be much bigger than a single article. This is only the tip of the iceberg from what I have already seen. I'll ask for advice before moving to delete. Thanks,

2922:

sugarplums dancing in their heads would be better served by producing content that is unbiased, pointing out the error of their ways. The verbiage above doesn't accomplish the task. Harboring an obvious animosity or contempt for the "religious" is an unacceptable norm for edits, as far as I can discern from WP guidelines for editing. That is one of the reasons I called for disclosure of affiliation. Though this is a talk page, it is not a general forum for discussion of material superficial to the article, unless it is included to support improvement of the article (with sources, of course).

3789:. Much has been written here in this talk page, but most of it has nothing to do with article improvement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the purpose of these talk pages? That's a major violation of the good faith (trust) WP is extending. You would use their resources to support personal agenda rather than for the intended purpose of this venue. I have seen productive talk pages. This isn't one of them. Is this the norm in controversial pages? How about a change: productivity? It would be no surprise to me why the best editors may not want to work here. This could be good article. 387:: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do. 213: 2785:: "ncse.com", tells the story. I'm calling for disclosure at this point for affiliation to the organization: National Center for Science Education (N.C.S.E.). The NCSE is decidedly biased in their anti-religious POV. Any affiliation with them is cause for COI concern. Are any editors on this page, or in this article, affiliated with NCSE? I'm asking for good faith disclosure. I don't see any disclosures listed on the article page or this one. If I missed something, help me out and direct me to the place where any disclosures might be found. 716: 1011: 1472: 1095: 3987:"the rejection of evolution is a purely political discussion, not a scientific."??? Not entirely true. Yes, it is not a subject of real controversy within the world of science, but it is just as much a theological POV and doctrine as ever within the many conservative groups that elevate the authority of the Bible over anything from science. Whether or not it is a prominent point of discussion in politics is just part of the normal ebb and flow of discourse. The underlying beliefs are still there. -- 548: 1861: 1840: 2439: 1755: 1567: 1001: 912: 3651:

opening any more wounds and pouring in a generous amount of salt? The article is positioned as a point of contention over an ideology with the current title. Let's stop pretending and join in the effort to smooth out civilizational differences. Knowledge would be a perfect platform to launch a global message of reconciliation and peace. With an alternate title, such as the one suggested, the article can accomplish much more than simply hurling accusations at religious groups.

1546: 980: 891: 1116: 2350: 1577: 3656:

through edit wars, or by ideological presentation. Perhaps the best title might be: "Rejection of evolution theory". With this title, development would be more neutral by definition. The implication is that only those who are affiliated with religious groups have problems with evolution theory. That is patently not true, and the article should speak of rejecting evolution theory without putting the bullseye on religious groups. I am also calling for disclosure of

1675: 1654: 45: 1462: 1217: 2300: 1441: 1196: 777: 787: 749: 869: 763: 1227: 1332: 98: 2404: 407:

thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"…"I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.

707: 1322: 3233:

mean what they say? There is a minimum expectation that a person is not suffering from some mental disorder that dissociates their ability to transmit their thoughts cogently. What you suggest is "putting words into other people's mouths". That should only be done when the person is aware of the conversation. That way, they would be able to explain to us all whether they are being "interpreted" correctly.

1301: 678: 1685: 3283:, and the resulting legal cases. To borrow the legal usage of the term, a "live case or controversy" is a situation where the parties still have a valid dispute. As we make clear, that has not been the case with evolution for a very long time. Attempts to portray creationism as anything other than religious have failed consistently since Scopes. The courts are clear: it's religion v. reality. 237: 443:"embers of the national ID movement insist that their attacks on evolution aren't religiously motivated, but, rather, scientific in nature." … "Yet the express strategic objectives of the Discovery Institute; the writings, careers, and affiliations of ID's leading proponents; and the movement’s funding sources all betray a clear moral and religious agenda." 2928:, While it may seem innocent enough to conceptually limit the activities of a radical group to a specific topic, if we apply that same reasoning to Hitler's activities, we would end up in a position under his boot. Working under a similar assumption, if the N.C.S.E. is only about science education, why would they be concerned at all about religion? 316:, statements of ID's main proponents, the nature of ID itself, and the history of the movement, it becomes apparent—Discovery Institute's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—that ID is a form of creationism, modified to appear more secular than it really is. This is in line with the Discovery Institute's stated strategy in the 3526:

I was startled and confused when I discovered the name of this page had changed. I spent about ten minutes looking in the archives for discussions of a merger with Creation-evolution controversy, since there seemed so much overlap! I finally noticed this tiny discussion. The point of all that is that

2812:

Well, creationists live in a parallel universe with alternative facts where creationism is valid science and where non-religious equals anti-religious. If you want to write articles that pretend that the parallel universe is the real world, you will not be happy editing Knowledge. There is actually a

256:

policy. The NPOV policy does not require all points of view to be represented as equally valid, but it does require us to represent them. The policy requires that we present the theory of evolution from the point of view of disinterested philosophers, biologists and other scientists, and that we also

3880:

Common arguments are in relation to metaphysics, that they're all equal doctrines including idealism (and that they each could provide proper science resulting in different conclusions versus methodological naturalism and materialism, etc), but the scientific method allows to evaluate and test their

3418:

I think it was too quick, as well. I'm still digesting. I'm not thrilled with the word rejection, because it is a bit loaded although not inaccurate. I would suggest that "opposition" might be a better word choice. "Groups" might exclude prominent individuals. The words "doctrinal" and "faith-based"

2921:

My final analysis of this section is that it's out of control. Opinions based on "conversion from YEC to atheism" are a contrived way of expressing an opinion that is not backed up by anything other than personal POV. What I would be looking for is sources. Those hapless individuals plagued with YEC

2872:

There are large areas of science and medicine where they will agree with others and their YEC beliefs are not evident. But there are areas where their deviance from science-based thinking will become evident. So it's not "all", but just that which disagrees with the Bible, which isn't everything. As

2637:

Actually, none of the sources support the first half of the sentence. I have also come to realize that the sentence contradicts itself, saying that "this view" completely rejects science, and then saying that creation science attempts to prove that young Earth creationism is consistent with science.

335:

hearing, and is a position supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Scientists say that ID cannot be regarded as scientific theory because it is untestable even in principle. A scientific theory predicts the outcome of experiments. If the predicted outcome is not observed,

3818:

Your message is long itself, but thanks for the reminder that this is not a general discussion forum. There's also a point where sanctions may be necessary at times but meanwhile I think that it was also an effort and display of good faith to participate. I also agree with tgeorgescu that there's

3780:

re: "Knowledge should not say there is peace when it is not true." Nice choice of words. WP is not here to be anything other than an encyclopedic resource, yet you may consider whether it is implausible for Ford to make automobiles. Doing anything in an environment of hostility or resentment has an

3655:

has a goal of advancing article development in a way that is redemptive. This is also reflected in numerous WP rules and guidelines. If the idea is for editors to come to terms, why would there be an impetus to be divisive in the minds of readers? The title positions the article for conflict either

2891:

to avoid editing the article themselves. There's only one that I'm somewhat familiar with and he's not very active on Knowledge. I also don't find edits from him in this article's history or on this talk page. But the NCSE is notable, so it's not surprising for it to have mentions. Its focus is

2655:

Young Earth Creationists reject everything that does not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, science, history, philosophy, math, medicine; you name it, and if it can neither conform to or be distorted in order to conform to a YEC's favorite misinterpretation of the Bible, they will reject

3934:

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is a fact, and the rejection of evolution is a purely political discussion, not a scientific controversy. I just say that this article has become dated as American politics surprise us every day with a new polarizing subject, and it seems the subject of this

3871:

A common argument is that if it's not science it's religious so does not merit any scientific scrutiny. The answer is of course that it attempts to pass as science (sources about the history from YEC to Creation Science to ID to prevent neutral biology education in schools may be relevant here);

3232:

re: "Our own interpretation of what the Pope meant is not usable per ...". I did not interpret what the Pope meant. I interpreted what he said in the framework of the assertion. The article is self contradictory on that issue. If a person says something they don't mean, then how can I assume they

2800:

The NCSE does not have an anti-religious POV, except when religious groups try to have their beliefs taught as fact in science classes. Even if editors are not "affiliated" with the NCSE, it is unsurprising that most will agree with a group whose purpose is to keep science teaching restricted to

406:

I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."…"Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first

3209:

Hope this helps. What affect it may have on article improvement is unknown at this point. The section doesn't appear to have been created for that purpose, but looking at the history of a movement always helps to determine why it is what it is. YEC doesn't seem to have been formed for any other

2958:

I propose that the article has no merit in and of itself. Therefore it should be removed from the stacks. This will, of course be a point of conflict, but be it as it may. It comes across as a propaganda piece against religion, and doesn't cover the topic sufficiently. It is sparse on scholarly

2620:

I see an edit war going on between some (?) IP editors, who are trying to soften the stance of young Earth creationists to say that they reject all science "on the issue", and some Knowledge regulars who are insisting on "all science" (period). I find the latter claim implausibly broad (do they

3650:

The title is decidedly POV, and is a point of potential social conflict. A better POV would be reflected using the above suggestion: "Religious groups reaction to evolution theory", but even this is potentially divisive. Don't we already have enough social schisms and irritation without anyone

2621:

reject Newton's laws? Classical thermodynamics?), and the burden of proof should be on them. So what do the sources say? Unfortunately, most of the citations clustered at the end of the paragraph don't mention young Earth creationism at all, as far as I can tell. I'm going to tag some of them.

3926:

However, this article has few, but any, references to rejection of evolution in the 2010s and 2020s. I know American politics and debates are very complex (if not crazy), but as an educated guess, it seems that the subject of this article has become dated and historical, because rejection of

3013:

On second thought, deletion isn't absolutely necessary, but a major rewrite is the only saving factor. For example a contradictory statement is made in paragraph 4: "The Catholic Church recognizes the existence of evolution ...". The pope is then quoted as saying "Evolution in nature is not

2855:

Well, since everyone is sharing their POV on the subject, I may as well chime in. As a preacher's kid from multigenerations of YEC, but now an atheist, I'd word it differently. I have two medical educations and have worked in YEC university settings and medical centers alongside medical and

290:, in that it does not depend on distortion of the evidence, or on the assumption that it is immune to empirical evidence. It depends only on the idea that the hypothesis of a designer makes sense and that it is not assigned a vanishingly small probability (see 3685:"Rejection of evolution theory" is disingenious because it pretends there is no elephant in the room. And "disclosure of WP:COI" sounds like the usual creationist conspiracy theory saying the evolution is hyped and creationism suppressed by sinister forces. -- 3476:

What? Opposition to evolution is certainly possible, as shown by the barrels of ink spent on the subject. It is religious, rhetorical, political, and very much present in various venues of public discourse, including state and federal court cases. See

336:

the theory is false. There is no experiment which can be constructed which can disprove intelligent design. Unlike a true scientific theory, it has absolutely no predictive capability. It doesn't run the risk of being disproved by objective experiment.

3881:

tenets and positions against reality (i.e. a proper "theistic science" would either deny evidence or achieve the same results). Some relevant sources may be found in relation to philosophy of science, the history of science and deep history, etc.

3548: 1787:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 3911:, so this article has a great deal of references. This article covers mostly the rejection of evolution by American fundamentalists in the 2000s, when it was a prominent issue in the culture wars, in the context of the creation of 257:

include the views of evolution proponents and opponents. We should not present minority views as though they are majority ones, but we should also make sure the minority views are correctly described and not just criticized.

3863:

I had a few notes on my TODO list about the above FAQ, so will express them here in case others are interested in evaluating their merits and/or improving it before I do. I otherwise think that it's pretty good already.

3570:, it could do, or something else, but equally it might stay because (a) "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and (b) there was, historically, some legitimate controversy, albeit over a century ago. 3940: 3784:

Back to business. Regarding the article title, it is deceptive, as stated above. The title says "religious groups", but only YEC are dealt with across the article, making the article unbalanced and not conformed to

145:

Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Knowledge aspires to be such a respected

268:: ID is a form of creationism, and many sources argue that it is identical. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and 464:"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief." 720: 3203:

This section shouldn't exist according to talk page guidelines. I will, however, answer the above opening edit to an extent. Some good information on the history of Young Earth Creationism can be found here

1776: 132:, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to 3682:. Knowledge should not say there is peace when it is not true. There are religious loons who attack the science for stupid reasons, and pretending they do not exist is not what an encyclopedia should do. 3210:

reason than to be a "follow me" paradigm. It (YEC) is a radical isolate, not founded on sound principles. The entirety of their belief system appears to be due to the types of relationships developed by

3931:

defending the teaching of intelligent design? The former real estate magnate and U.S. President surely is an indicator that the political polarization in the U.S. still exists but its subjects change.

3707:

also already exists, this article is more about its rejection (that can be considered a political controversy but not a scientific one in this case, so previously renamed to be more accurate). Oh and

3777:

You guys seem to be using this talk page for soapboxing, rather than suggesting improvements to the article. I call it ironic when the person citing yours truly for soapboxing is joining in the fray.

527: 3279:. In particular, it should be avoided for a false controversy between science and motivated reasoning. This article makes the case very clearly that what we are describing is not a controversy, but 4053: 2744:

Astrophysics, astronomy, nuclear physics, geophysics, geochemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, evolutionary theory, genetics, molecular biology, paleobiology, and anthropology, according to

1493:-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 3735:. If not religious reasons it would be other ideological ones or ignorance (where science education should help). This doesn't mean that there aren't scientific debates about details of the 124: 359:

Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.

3944: 1042: 189: 4018: 3804:

You don't understand something: for academics harsh criticism is not a token that we hate each other, but business as usual. Some of us like to know our own errors and learn from it.

2009: 163: 499: 2868:, and medicine that do not agree with their interpretation of the Bible, but believe, practice, and research all other aspects of those subjects just as other, non-YEC, people do." 4043: 2649: 2632: 2916: 3242: 3227: 3026: 2968: 2937: 2794: 4058: 1423: 2446: 688: 649: 2882: 3959: 3936: 3699:

Possible alternatives may be "Religious views on evolution" but this is not really what this article is about; "Evolution and religion", although that'd possible invite a

3442: 1077: 3981: 150: 140: 3852: 3831: 2995:

There's no need to ping me. Sure, Scott did important work against the corruption of education and is very notable for that. Why would that be Knowledge's problem? —

2721: 2701: 2665: 1822: 1737: 212: 176: 4168: 3428: 2739: 2685: 2568: 2563: 2558: 2553: 2548: 2543: 2538: 2533: 2528: 2523: 2518: 2513: 2508: 2503: 2498: 3813: 3771: 3723: 3629: 3413: 3264: 3070: 3007: 2952: 2847: 1963: 630: 3794: 3694: 3478: 3126: 3106: 3041: 2826: 2757: 2493: 2488: 2483: 2478: 2473: 2468: 2463: 2458: 2453: 3562: 2805: 2382:'Public policy issues' & 'Issues relating to religion' sections require introductory paragraphs to provide an overview and give structure to their sub-sections. 2233:

needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.

4208: 3612: 3538: 2314: 3511: 3490: 2615: 3393: 1528: 4148: 3583: 3330: 2990: 1413: 3471: 3398:

An improvement, from where I sit. There is no real controversy, just extremist xtians in Merkia, and a few other minor religious groups of varying flavours. -

1283: 223: 172:, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. 962: 4103: 4004: 3897: 1067: 3349: 1178: 4218: 1812: 217: 17: 193:: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. 4153: 859: 4188: 3544: 3927:

evolution still exists but is no longer propagated by its foremost supporters, American conservatives. The culture wars have shifted, have you seen

3498:, but that's still repudiation not opposition. As I say, you can't oppose something that is a fact of nature, but you can pretend it doesn't exist. 1911: 1636: 4108: 3419:

come to mind, but neither feels quite right to me. I would argue for not reverting the move, but no more moves without a well-discussed consensus.

291: 116: 64: 3321:

Agreed, either "religious rejection of evolution' or "Rejection of evolution by religious groups" would be preferable, there is no "controversy".

4223: 4163: 3111: 1518: 3798: 4143: 4133: 1273: 3669: 2892:

science education, that especially in the US has a history of corruption. An encyclopedia promoting public education and with academic bias (

4203: 3645: 1727: 1037: 3759:

are historical views and details. There are movements producing pseudoscientific argumentative literature, but that's not sound science. —

4118: 4098: 4088: 4073: 2021: 1788: 1168: 952: 3371:

Too soon. I actually agree that this is a more accurate title, but the the term creation-evolution controversy is well-known, and this is

185:, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. 4213: 4173: 3902: 3365: 3295: 2728:

have you ever bothered to look at Young Earth Creationist sites to begin with, let alone that they are rife with anti-science propaganda?

4138: 4068: 3050:, but if you mean that many Catholics believe in theistic evolution I think that there are sources supporting that, one is from Scott, 2888: 2730:

did you read the sources and note that they don't actually state Creation Science/Young Earth Creationist is consistent with science?--

2308: 2178: 1390: 1345: 1306: 849: 3315: 4238: 4233: 4183: 4093: 4038: 3972:

to gullible audiences. That Donald Trump does not seem to care about the topic does not mean that creationism has suddenly died out.

1901: 1626: 813: 4123: 2153: 1952: 1494: 1033: 1024: 985: 513: 485: 471: 332: 313: 2320: 4158: 4048: 3597:. I tried to correct it, but someone who applies rules without understanding reverted me. The link that I'm sure you intended is 1958: 1783: 1760: 1249: 2326: 2252: 4128: 4078: 2171: 2085: 928: 2092: 4193: 4083: 4028: 3189: 1144: 331:: The majority of scientists state ID should not be characterized as science. This was the finding of Judge Jones during the 301:

Although intelligent design proponents do not name the designer, they make it clear that the designer is the Christian god.

4113: 821: 310:, almost all derivations of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design". 2332: 2066: 4198: 3790: 3756: 2113: 2099: 2014: 1947: 1485: 1446: 574: 3433:

A bold move, IMO, an improvement which can stand until there is consensus to refine it. "Opposition" could work nicely.

444: 4063: 3752: 3248:

As far as I'm concerned the discussion is done here, unless perhaps more specific proposals were done with citations.

2817:. You will not succeed morphing Knowledge into another Conservapdeia, so maybe you should directly go there instead. -- 2424: 1942: 1877: 1374: 1370: 1240: 1201: 642: 623: 604: 569: 112: 3877:

There's no mention of pseudoscience in Q3 either (it's implicit, not explicit), but the above could also address that.

1032:

content on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the

4228: 4178: 3858: 2857: 2373: 919: 896: 252:: There have been arguments over the years about the article's neutrality and concerns that it violates Knowledge's 3907:

The rejection of evolution by religious groups surely is a very notable topic, especially in the filed of American

3837: 1143:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1123: 1100: 817: 4033: 4023: 1698: 1659: 565: 129: 3872:

that it makes false claims about topics that science properly covers; that it aims to corrupt science education.

2044: 3252:

is also a good guide. Another possibility is creating text drafts in a sandbox for review by other editors. —

1986: 825: 801: 754: 2054: 2049: 2416: 2379:*'Forums for the controversy' section should go beyond debates, and eventually add an introductory sentence. 2117: 2039: 1969: 1930: 1868: 1845: 1602: 1593: 1551: 425:"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," 2638:

This latter statement is actually supported by some of the sources, particularly the one by Eugenie Scott.

2128: 729: 564:, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the 83: 52: 3964:"references to rejection of evolution in the 2010s and 2020s." The article is probably outdated, but the 2600: 2121: 1991: 1337: 1029: 273: 82:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

3732: 1386: 79: 2584: 383:

So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the

3486: 3481:. While the opposition may be deluded, gullible, or willfully ignorant, it is a demographic reality. 3438: 2873:

with much in life, "all" is an extreme, and rarely true, exaggeration. Use a bit of common sense. --

1016: 684: 2745: 547: 2138:

by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

1974: 2427:

for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

1876:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1248:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

927:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

392: 3969: 3744: 3704: 3607: 3557: 3533: 3326: 2696: 2644: 2627: 1980: 559: 371:

This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.

364: 465: 3891: 3846: 3825: 3765: 3717: 3424: 3408: 3258: 3120: 3064: 3001: 2948: 2910: 2843: 2735: 2716: 2680: 2661: 2216: 71: 3218:. Need I say more? Your question doesn't follow, unless it is leading to article improvement. 1601:

resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the

3708: 3690: 3665: 3388: 3270: 3238: 3223: 3038: 3022: 2964: 2933: 2822: 2790: 1358: 735: 3676:

Knowledge would be a perfect platform to launch a global message of reconciliation and peace

412: 3955: 3809: 3740: 3642: 3626: 3495: 3482: 3434: 3102: 2802: 2781:

would be here in like manner, yet as I suspected, there may be some affiliation suspect of

2753: 2304: 2127:

Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see

2082:

to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.

1350: 306: 677: 8: 2901: 2079: 1477: 1362: 1354: 1232: 706: 75: 2420: 1385:. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also 3998: 3977: 3748: 3729:

Only those who are affiliated with religious groups have problems with evolution theory

3603: 3567: 3553: 3529: 3346: 3322: 3161: 3055: 3051: 2897: 2692: 2640: 2623: 1997: 1382: 269: 3992: 3886: 3841: 3820: 3760: 3736: 3712: 3447: 3420: 3399: 3253: 3186: 3115: 3059: 2996: 2944: 2925: 2905: 2878: 2839: 2774: 2731: 2707: 2671: 2657: 2411: 2362: 2159:

Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating

1597:, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use 762: 427: 3686: 3661: 3376: 3361: 3234: 3219: 3149: 3097:

There is life outside of Knowledge. Knowledge does not have a monopoly on Net 2.0.

3033: 3018: 2974: 2960: 2929: 2887:

The editors with a COI in relation to the NCSE are likely those making requests at

2833: 2818: 2786: 2264: 2135: 1690: 287: 241:

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

2368:*Arguments relating to the definition, limits and philosophy of science' section. 438: 3951: 3916: 3805: 3700: 3638: 3622: 3598: 3178: 3098: 2986: 2904:

that can be considered apologetic but does not promote rejection of evolution. —

2893: 2778: 2749: 792: 468: 3341:, but the main issue is getting rid of "controversy" in the title, it's absurd. 2896:) like Knowledge is compatible with that, it seems. This article also mentions 155:

Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as

3920: 3786: 3652: 2149: 2070: 1582: 384: 317: 253: 182: 60: 2580: 376: 4012: 3973: 3965: 3912: 3739:. Hypotheses are put forward, tested, falsified, etc. There are debates in 3679: 3657: 3618: 3578: 3506: 3466: 3342: 3310: 3276: 3249: 3080: 2978: 2814: 2782: 2438: 2240: 2230: 1366: 1136: 1132: 1115: 1094: 133: 56: 3593:: In your original message, you linked "word to avoid" to the disambig page 3988: 3928: 3908: 3215: 3047: 3032:

Make sure you mention that the NCSE is some sort of radical atheist group.

2874: 2690:

Both of you - this is Knowledge. What are your sources for this statement?

2236: 2164: 1490: 1245: 283: 1929:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the

812:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us 3731:

but there are no competing scientifically plausible alternatives and the

3357: 2349: 2193: 1775: 1754: 1378: 924: 519: 491: 277: 2585: 1860: 1839: 1000: 979: 911: 890: 3164: 3015: 2982: 1140: 159:, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. 115:

ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in

44: 1576: 1566: 1545: 1377:

in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than

3211: 2160: 1703: 448: 169: 156: 1923:

For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite:

1461: 1440: 3590: 3572: 3500: 3460: 3304: 2582: 808: 786: 1216: 1195: 868: 3054:

also appears to use this one. There's also an article about the

2746:

https://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/stearns/expert_witness_ayala.pdf

2258: 1873: 1674: 1653: 1598: 1226: 1128: 776: 748: 3046:

Our own interpretation of what the Pope meant is not usable per

2267:

defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

4054:

Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences

2977:, if you want this article deleted, your next step is to go to 1331: 262:

Q2: Should Intelligent Design (ID) be equated with creationism?

3152:(1997). "Antievolution and Creationism in the United States". 2943:

What specific changes to the article are being proposed here?

2586: 236: 3950:

Well, it could be true. Do you have a source for your claim?

2864:

YECs "reject those aspects of science, history, philosophy,

1321: 1300: 876:

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

568:. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be 3637:

Thanks for making this page move, it's an improvement. . .

2773:

I need to apologize beforehand, but also need to say this.

523: 495: 452: 2112:

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see

1036:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 246:

Q1: Is this article unfairly biased in favor of evolution?

70:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the

4019:

Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure

3594: 3549:

History of the rejection of evolution by religious groups

3479:

Category:United States creationism and evolution case law

2670:

e/c I was going to say the same, but less eloguemntly!! -

428:

Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999

411:

Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference.

282:

Not everyone agrees with this. For example, philosopher

276:, stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast 55:

procedure applies to this page. This page is related to

4044:

Knowledge vital articles in Society and social sciences

393:

Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson

3923:

was in favor of the teaching of "intelligent design".

286:

argues that intelligent design is very different from

4059:

B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences

1349:, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on 181:

Theories which have a substantial following, such as

3868:

Q3 lacks (or it may be for a possible Q4, perhaps):

3836:

Oh, but the above is too, more text by BRealAlways (

2432: 1872:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1680: 1572: 1489:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1467: 1327: 1244:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1222: 1127:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1006: 923:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 782: 578:

of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

232:

These questions arise frequently on this talk page.

107:

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

2163:, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see 2148:Find sources for all positions of an article (see 4169:B-Class Palaeontology articles of High-importance 2856:scientific researchers who were YEC. They live a 304:In drafts of the 1989 high-school level textbook 4010: 2860:existence, so here's a more accurate statement: 117:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 4209:B-Class Astronomy articles of Bottom-importance 2616:Do young Earth creationists reject all science? 2134:Ensure atheism-related articles are members of 1589:Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups 806:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on 2656:it and denounce it as the Devil's excrement.-- 505: 4149:High-importance Evolutionary biology articles 3545:History of the creation–evolution controversy 2594:This page has archives. Sections older than 1043:History of Science Collaboration of the Month 1702:, which collaborates on articles related to 417: 4104:High-importance history of science articles 3356:Just did it - now awaiting reaction ... :) 3296:Acceptance of evolution by religious groups 3086:Other remarks: at Knowledge we do not sing 2022:Articles recently added to Category:Atheism 125:Neutral point of view as applied to science 4219:High-importance Alternative Views articles 3339:Rejection of evolution by religious groups 3300:Rejection of evolution by religious groups 2889:Talk:National Center for Science Education 2402: 2357:Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 2309:Rejection of evolution by religious groups 1398:Knowledge:WikiProject Evolutionary biology 554:Rejection of evolution by religious groups 325:Q3: Should ID be characterized as science? 4154:WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles 3968:opened in 2016, and is used to propagate 3286:So, per NPOV, we should use a title like 1401:Template:WikiProject Evolutionary biology 1028:, an attempt to improve and organize the 292:"Public Education and Intelligent Design" 168:Theories which have a following, such as 4189:High-importance B-Class Geology articles 3903:Has the rejection of evolution died out? 3454:evolution, though, any more than yo can 2409:Text and/or other creative content from 1052:Knowledge:WikiProject History of Science 514:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 486:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 472:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 351: 349: 4109:WikiProject History of Science articles 3092:A mighty fortress is mainstream science 2419:on October 29, 2004. The former page's 1797:Knowledge:WikiProject Alternative Views 1055:Template:WikiProject History of Science 704: 14: 4224:WikiProject Alternative Views articles 4164:High-importance Palaeontology articles 4011: 3937:2804:14D:8084:A496:7882:1F19:B1E4:27D0 3177: 2604:when more than 3 sections are present. 1800:Template:WikiProject Alternative Views 4144:B-Class Evolutionary biology articles 4134:High-importance Christianity articles 3819:no hatred involved or necessary... — 3148: 1353:and its associated subfields such as 477: 447:Chris Mooney. The American Prospect, 432: 346: 119:. The final decision was as follows: 4204:Bottom-importance Astronomy articles 3458:the Earth being an oblate spheroid. 2398: 2290: 1953:Links to atheism-related information 1866:This article is within the scope of 1781:This article is within the scope of 1696:This article is within the scope of 1483:This article is within the scope of 1238:This article is within the scope of 1121:This article is within the scope of 917:This article is within the scope of 798:This article is within the scope of 700: 687:on December 11, 2004. The result of 672: 202: 190:Alternative theoretical formulations 92: 39: 26: 4119:High-importance Skepticism articles 4099:B-Class history of science articles 4089:Top-importance Creationism articles 4074:Religion articles needing attention 3757:Alternatives to Darwinian evolution 3083:is laughable. I mean: really funny! 2726:Among other things, RockMangetist, 2706:My spelling above, for one thing. - 1503:Knowledge:WikiProject Palaeontology 413:How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won 391:Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. 24: 18:Talk:Creation-evolution controversy 4214:B-Class Alternative Views articles 4174:WikiProject Palaeontology articles 3753:evolutionary developmental biology 3185:. University of California Press. 1506:Template:WikiProject Palaeontology 1371:evolutionary developmental biology 1258:Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity 867: 397: 164:Generally considered pseudoscience 96: 25: 4250: 4139:WikiProject Christianity articles 4069:High-importance Religion articles 3292:creationist reaction to evolution 2813:Wiki for that parallel universe: 2598:may be automatically archived by 2544:October 31, 2007 – March 31, 2008 1261:Template:WikiProject Christianity 937:Knowledge:WikiProject Creationism 365:Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin 4239:Knowledge pages with to-do lists 4234:High-importance Atheism articles 4184:High-importance Geology articles 4094:WikiProject Creationism articles 4039:Knowledge level-5 vital articles 3527:this name change was premature. 3294:- or, perhaps, as a parallel to 3288:religious rejection of evolution 3281:religious rejection of evolution 3183:Evolution:The History of an Idea 2437: 2348: 2298: 2172:list of atheism-related articles 1859: 1838: 1774: 1753: 1683: 1673: 1652: 1575: 1565: 1544: 1470: 1460: 1439: 1391:WikiProject Evolutionary biology 1346:WikiProject Evolutionary biology 1330: 1320: 1299: 1225: 1215: 1194: 1153:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism 1114: 1093: 1009: 999: 978: 940:Template:WikiProject Creationism 910: 889: 785: 775: 761: 747: 714: 705: 676: 546: 235: 211: 43: 4124:WikiProject Skepticism articles 2981:and follow the instructions. -- 2900:and includes a source from the 1906:This article has been rated as 1817:This article has been rated as 1732:This article has been rated as 1712:Knowledge:WikiProject Astronomy 1631:This article has been rated as 1523:This article has been rated as 1418:This article has been rated as 1389:for more information) or visit 1278:This article has been rated as 1173:This article has been rated as 1156:Template:WikiProject Skepticism 1072:This article has been rated as 957:This article has been rated as 854:This article has been rated as 683:This article was nominated for 528:4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87 363:Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. 130:Knowledge:Neutral point of view 4159:B-Class Palaeontology articles 4049:B-Class level-5 vital articles 3898:10:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC) 3703:refocus that is discouraged. 3646:09:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC) 3630:09:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC) 3543:If it stands, what happens to 3171: 3142: 2549:March 31, 2008 – January, 2009 2539:May 5, 2007 – October 31, 2007 2494:September 2005 – December 2005 1715:Template:WikiProject Astronomy 1040:. You can also help with the 1025:History of Science WikiProject 834:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion 734:It is of interest to multiple 458: 375:Johnson 1996. World Magazine. 13: 1: 4129:B-Class Christianity articles 4079:WikiProject Religion articles 4005:16:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC) 3982:15:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC) 3960:18:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC) 3945:17:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC) 3747:, about the demarcation with 3154:Annual Review of Anthropology 2758:23:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2740:22:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2722:22:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2702:22:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2686:22:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2666:22:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2650:22:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2633:22:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC) 2564:December, 2014 – August, 2015 2529:January 2007 – April 20, 2007 2464:December 2004 – December 2004 2459:November 2004 – December 2004 2417:Creation vs. evolution debate 1959:List of free online resources 1886:Knowledge:WikiProject Atheism 1880:and see a list of open tasks. 1784:WikiProject Alternative views 1611:Knowledge:WikiProject Geology 1497:and see a list of open tasks. 1404:Evolutionary biology articles 1252:and see a list of open tasks. 1147:and see a list of open tasks. 931:and see a list of open tasks. 837:Template:WikiProject Religion 377:Witnesses For The Prosecution 296:Philosophy and Public Affairs 272:, one of the founders of the 84:contentious topics procedures 4194:WikiProject Geology articles 4084:B-Class Creationism articles 4029:Old requests for peer review 3853:08:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC) 3838:Special:Permalink/1069433885 3832:08:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC) 3814:07:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC) 3799:06:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC) 3772:18:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 3724:18:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 3695:11:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 3670:09:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 3265:08:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC) 3243:06:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC) 3228:05:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC) 3127:04:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC) 3107:03:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC) 3071:23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC) 3042:18:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC) 3027:18:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC) 3008:23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC) 2991:18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC) 2969:17:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC) 2953:13:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC) 2938:13:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC) 2917:18:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 2883:15:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 2848:15:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 2827:13:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 2806:12:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 2795:12:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 2554:January, 2009 – August, 2011 2534:April 20, 2007 – May 5, 2007 2524:December 2006 – January 2007 2519:October 2006 – December 2006 2499:December 2005 – January 2006 2479:January 2005 – February 2005 2469:December 2004 – January 2005 2205:Articles on notable atheists 1889:Template:WikiProject Atheism 1614:Template:WikiProject Geology 1022:This article is part of the 7: 4114:B-Class Skepticism articles 3337:I completely agree. I like 2489:March 2005 – September 2005 2474:January 2005 – January 2005 1338:Evolutionary biology portal 1058:history of science articles 10: 4255: 4199:B-Class Astronomy articles 3915:and the foundation of the 3621:which looks ok. Thanks, . 2559:August, 2011 – April, 2014 2484:February 2005 – March 2005 2243:: discuss whether you are 1912:project's importance scale 1823:project's importance scale 1803:Alternative Views articles 1738:project's importance scale 1637:project's importance scale 1529:project's importance scale 1424:project's importance scale 1387:Knowledge:Contributing FAQ 1373:. It is distinct from the 1284:project's importance scale 1179:project's importance scale 1078:project's importance scale 963:project's importance scale 860:project's importance scale 572:. Editors may also seek a 441:Discovery Institute, 1999. 228:Frequently asked questions 4064:B-Class Religion articles 3859:Possible FAQ improvements 3678:I think you need to read 3613:03:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3584:08:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3563:17:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC) 3539:17:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC) 3512:08:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 3114:, on the other hand... — 2592: 2454:Antiquity – November 2004 2435: 2415:was copied or moved into 2179:write for an encyclopedia 1918: 1905: 1854: 1816: 1769: 1731: 1668: 1630: 1560: 1522: 1486:WikiProject Palaeontology 1455: 1417: 1315: 1277: 1210: 1172: 1109: 1071: 1017:History of science portal 994: 956: 905: 875: 853: 770: 742: 663: 631:Good article reassessment 586: 582: 298:, Vol. 36, no. 2, 2008). 280:as a scientific concept. 86:before editing this page. 33:Skip to table of contents 4229:B-Class Atheism articles 4179:B-Class Geology articles 3733:evidence is overwhelming 3491:18:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 3472:09:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 3375:too brief a discussion. 2514:July 2006 – October 2006 2067:Join WikiProject atheism 1943:Project's main talk page 1375:WikiProject Tree of Life 1343:This article is part of 1241:WikiProject Christianity 824:standards, or visit the 111:In December of 2006 the 80:normal editorial process 32: 3970:Young Earth creationism 3745:evolutionary psychology 3705:Objections to evolution 3443:17:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 3429:15:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 3414:15:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 3394:15:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 3366:13:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 3350:11:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 3331:10:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 3316:10:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 2504:January 2006 – May 2006 2174:and add to accordingly. 1987:About original research 920:WikiProject Creationism 67:as a contentious topic. 4034:B-Class vital articles 4024:Delisted good articles 3935:article has moved on. 3919:, when even president 3617:Currently it links to 2601:Lowercase sigmabot III 2257:Clarify references in 1964:Writing about religion 1509:Palaeontology articles 1124:WikiProject Skepticism 872: 101: 76:standards of behaviour 3709:teach the controversy 2118:"The perfect article" 2015:the "Atheism" article 1699:WikiProject Astronomy 1605:for more information. 1359:quantitative genetics 1264:Christianity articles 871: 721:level-5 vital article 666:Delisted good article 566:good article criteria 466:Expert Witness Report 254:neutral point of view 151:Obvious pseudoscience 141:Serious encyclopedias 113:Arbitration Committee 100: 3741:behavioural genetics 2509:May 2006 – July 2006 1395:Evolutionary biology 1351:evolutionary biology 1307:Evolutionary biology 943:Creationism articles 802:WikiProject Religion 612:Good article nominee 341:Notes and references 312:Taken together, the 307:Of Pandas and People 177:Questionable science 72:purpose of Knowledge 3450:, you can't really 2902:BioLogos Foundation 2801:facts and reality. 2425:provide attribution 2224:Immediate attention 2188:Articles to improve 2098:Help out with this 1970:Article development 1869:WikiProject Atheism 1594:WikiProject Geology 1478:Paleontology portal 1363:molecular evolution 1355:population genetics 1233:Christianity portal 1159:Skepticism articles 3749:nature and nurture 3386: 3056:Watchmaker analogy 3052:Theistic evolution 2898:theistic evolution 2338:Updated 2020-05-02 2154:atheism references 2086:Help with articles 1718:Astronomy articles 1049:History of Science 1030:history of science 986:History of Science 873: 814:assess and improve 730:content assessment 587:Article milestones 270:Phillip E. Johnson 102: 53:contentious topics 3737:scientific theory 3582: 3547:? Does it become 3510: 3470: 3405: 3377: 3314: 3275:Controversy is a 3191:978-0-520-23693-6 3150:Scott, Eugenie C. 2926:User:PaleoNeonate 2858:compartmentalized 2803:Black Kite (talk) 2713: 2677: 2608: 2607: 2431: 2430: 2397: 2396: 2391: 2390: 2289: 2288: 2285: 2284: 2281: 2280: 2277: 2276: 2273: 2272: 2143:Maintenance, etc. 2122:Featured articles 2091:See this month's 1992:Assume good faith 1981:Verifying sources 1833: 1832: 1829: 1828: 1794:Alternative Views 1761:Alternative Views 1748: 1747: 1744: 1743: 1734:Bottom-importance 1663:Bottom‑importance 1647: 1646: 1643: 1642: 1539: 1538: 1535: 1534: 1434: 1433: 1430: 1429: 1294: 1293: 1290: 1289: 1189: 1188: 1185: 1184: 1088: 1087: 1084: 1083: 973: 972: 969: 968: 884: 883: 880: 879: 840:Religion articles 828:for more details. 699: 698: 671: 670: 659: 658: 643:November 25, 2006 541: 540: 355:Phillip Johnson: 314:Kitzmiller ruling 226: 201: 200: 91: 90: 63:, which has been 38: 37: 16:(Redirected from 4246: 3894: 3889: 3849: 3844: 3828: 3823: 3768: 3763: 3720: 3715: 3611: 3576: 3561: 3537: 3504: 3464: 3403: 3391: 3385: 3384: 3381: 3308: 3261: 3256: 3196: 3195: 3179:Bowler, Peter J. 3175: 3169: 3168: 3146: 3123: 3118: 3088:Kumbaya, My Lord 3067: 3062: 3036: 3004: 2999: 2913: 2908: 2837: 2711: 2700: 2675: 2648: 2631: 2603: 2587: 2441: 2433: 2414: 2406: 2405: 2399: 2352: 2345: 2344: 2339: 2302: 2301: 2291: 2265:Secular movement 2261:using footnotes. 2165:deletion process 2093:adopt-an-article 2030: 2029: 1920: 1919: 1894: 1893: 1892:Atheism articles 1890: 1887: 1884: 1863: 1856: 1855: 1850: 1842: 1835: 1834: 1805: 1804: 1801: 1798: 1795: 1778: 1771: 1770: 1765: 1757: 1750: 1749: 1720: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1710: 1693: 1691:Astronomy portal 1688: 1687: 1686: 1677: 1670: 1669: 1664: 1656: 1649: 1648: 1619: 1618: 1617:Geology articles 1615: 1612: 1609: 1585: 1580: 1579: 1569: 1562: 1561: 1556: 1548: 1541: 1540: 1511: 1510: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1464: 1457: 1456: 1451: 1443: 1436: 1435: 1406: 1405: 1402: 1399: 1396: 1340: 1335: 1334: 1324: 1317: 1316: 1311: 1303: 1296: 1295: 1266: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1256: 1235: 1230: 1229: 1219: 1212: 1211: 1206: 1198: 1191: 1190: 1161: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1151: 1118: 1111: 1110: 1105: 1097: 1090: 1089: 1060: 1059: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1019: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1003: 996: 995: 990: 982: 975: 974: 945: 944: 941: 938: 935: 914: 907: 906: 901: 893: 886: 885: 842: 841: 838: 835: 832: 826:wikiproject page 795: 790: 789: 779: 772: 771: 766: 765: 764: 759: 751: 744: 743: 727: 718: 717: 710: 709: 701: 680: 673: 664:Current status: 645: 626: 607: 605:January 22, 2006 584: 583: 550: 543: 542: 530: 517: 509: 503: 489: 481: 475: 462: 456: 436: 430: 426: 421: 415: 410: 401: 395: 390: 385:"wedge" strategy 374: 362: 353: 288:creation science 239: 216: 215: 203: 99: 93: 47: 40: 27: 21: 4254: 4253: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4009: 4008: 3917:Creation Museum 3905: 3892: 3887: 3861: 3847: 3842: 3826: 3821: 3766: 3761: 3718: 3713: 3711:also exists. — 3602: 3552: 3528: 3496:Just plain Bill 3483:Just plain Bill 3435:Just plain Bill 3389: 3382: 3379: 3378: 3273: 3259: 3254: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3192: 3176: 3172: 3147: 3143: 3121: 3116: 3079:Accusing me of 3065: 3060: 3034: 3002: 2997: 2911: 2906: 2831: 2779:User:Tgeorgescu 2691: 2639: 2622: 2618: 2599: 2588: 2583: 2574: 2573: 2410: 2403: 2393: 2392: 2387: 2313: 2299: 2217:an atheism stub 2059: 2027: 2026: 2004:Recent activity 1908:High-importance 1891: 1888: 1885: 1882: 1881: 1849:High‑importance 1848: 1819:High-importance 1802: 1799: 1796: 1793: 1792: 1764:High‑importance 1763: 1717: 1714: 1711: 1708: 1707: 1689: 1684: 1682: 1662: 1633:High-importance 1616: 1613: 1610: 1607: 1606: 1581: 1574: 1555:High‑importance 1554: 1525:High-importance 1508: 1505: 1502: 1499: 1498: 1476: 1471: 1469: 1450:High‑importance 1449: 1420:High-importance 1403: 1400: 1397: 1394: 1393: 1336: 1329: 1310:High‑importance 1309: 1280:High-importance 1263: 1260: 1257: 1254: 1253: 1231: 1224: 1205:High‑importance 1204: 1175:High-importance 1158: 1155: 1152: 1149: 1148: 1104:High‑importance 1103: 1074:High-importance 1057: 1054: 1051: 1048: 1047: 1015: 1010: 1008: 989:High‑importance 988: 942: 939: 936: 933: 932: 899: 856:High-importance 839: 836: 833: 830: 829: 793:Religion portal 791: 784: 760: 758:High‑importance 757: 728:on Knowledge's 725: 715: 641: 624:October 4, 2006 622: 603: 556:was one of the 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 511: 510: 506: 483: 482: 478: 474:, April, 2005. 469:Barbara Forrest 463: 459: 445:Inferior Design 437: 433: 424: 422: 418: 403: 402: 398: 380: 368: 356: 354: 347: 342: 338: 337: 326: 322: 321: 263: 259: 258: 247: 229: 227: 197: 196: 108: 97: 74:, any expected 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 4252: 4242: 4241: 4236: 4231: 4226: 4221: 4216: 4211: 4206: 4201: 4196: 4191: 4186: 4181: 4176: 4171: 4166: 4161: 4156: 4151: 4146: 4141: 4136: 4131: 4126: 4121: 4116: 4111: 4106: 4101: 4096: 4091: 4086: 4081: 4076: 4071: 4066: 4061: 4056: 4051: 4046: 4041: 4036: 4031: 4026: 4021: 3985: 3984: 3962: 3921:George W. Bush 3904: 3901: 3883: 3882: 3878: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3860: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3834: 3816: 3775: 3774: 3751:(including in 3726: 3697: 3683: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3541: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3445: 3404:the effin dog 3354: 3353: 3334: 3333: 3272: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3198: 3197: 3190: 3170: 3140: 3139: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3095: 3084: 3074: 3073: 3044: 3011: 3010: 2993: 2956: 2955: 2870: 2869: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2809: 2808: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2748:(Ayala 2007). 2617: 2614: 2612: 2606: 2605: 2593: 2590: 2589: 2581: 2579: 2576: 2575: 2572: 2571: 2569:August, 2015 – 2566: 2561: 2556: 2551: 2546: 2541: 2536: 2531: 2526: 2521: 2516: 2511: 2506: 2501: 2496: 2491: 2486: 2481: 2476: 2471: 2466: 2461: 2456: 2450: 2449: 2443: 2429: 2428: 2423:now serves to 2407: 2395: 2394: 2389: 2388: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2369: 2356: 2354: 2353: 2341: 2296: 2294: 2287: 2286: 2283: 2282: 2279: 2278: 2275: 2274: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2262: 2255: 2234: 2220: 2219: 2209: 2207: 2206: 2197: 2196: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2175: 2168: 2157: 2150:Citing sources 2140: 2139: 2132: 2125: 2104: 2103: 2096: 2089: 2083: 2061: 2060: 2058: 2057: 2052: 2047: 2042: 2036: 2034: 2028: 2025: 2024: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2001: 2000: 1989: 1975:Citing sources 1972: 1961: 1950: 1948:Article layout 1945: 1936: 1935: 1925: 1924: 1916: 1915: 1904: 1898: 1897: 1895: 1878:the discussion 1864: 1852: 1851: 1843: 1831: 1830: 1827: 1826: 1815: 1809: 1808: 1806: 1779: 1767: 1766: 1758: 1746: 1745: 1742: 1741: 1730: 1724: 1723: 1721: 1695: 1694: 1678: 1666: 1665: 1657: 1645: 1644: 1641: 1640: 1629: 1623: 1622: 1620: 1587: 1586: 1583:Geology portal 1570: 1558: 1557: 1549: 1537: 1536: 1533: 1532: 1521: 1515: 1514: 1512: 1495:the discussion 1482: 1481: 1465: 1453: 1452: 1444: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1427: 1416: 1410: 1409: 1407: 1342: 1341: 1325: 1313: 1312: 1304: 1292: 1291: 1288: 1287: 1276: 1270: 1269: 1267: 1250:the discussion 1237: 1236: 1220: 1208: 1207: 1199: 1187: 1186: 1183: 1182: 1171: 1165: 1164: 1162: 1145:the discussion 1119: 1107: 1106: 1098: 1086: 1085: 1082: 1081: 1070: 1064: 1063: 1061: 1021: 1020: 1004: 992: 991: 983: 971: 970: 967: 966: 959:Top-importance 955: 949: 948: 946: 929:the discussion 915: 903: 902: 900:Top‑importance 894: 882: 881: 878: 877: 874: 864: 863: 852: 846: 845: 843: 797: 796: 780: 768: 767: 752: 740: 739: 733: 711: 697: 696: 689:the discussion 681: 669: 668: 661: 660: 657: 656: 653: 646: 638: 637: 634: 627: 619: 618: 615: 608: 600: 599: 596: 593: 589: 588: 580: 579: 551: 539: 538: 532: 531: 518:, 04 cv 2688 ( 504: 490:, 04 cv 2688 ( 476: 457: 442: 439:Wedge Document 431: 416: 396: 344: 343: 340: 339: 327: 324: 323: 318:Wedge Document 264: 261: 260: 248: 245: 244: 230: 210: 209: 208: 206: 199: 198: 195: 194: 186: 183:psychoanalysis 173: 160: 147: 137: 109: 106: 105: 103: 89: 88: 61:fringe science 48: 36: 35: 30: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4251: 4240: 4237: 4235: 4232: 4230: 4227: 4225: 4222: 4220: 4217: 4215: 4212: 4210: 4207: 4205: 4202: 4200: 4197: 4195: 4192: 4190: 4187: 4185: 4182: 4180: 4177: 4175: 4172: 4170: 4167: 4165: 4162: 4160: 4157: 4155: 4152: 4150: 4147: 4145: 4142: 4140: 4137: 4135: 4132: 4130: 4127: 4125: 4122: 4120: 4117: 4115: 4112: 4110: 4107: 4105: 4102: 4100: 4097: 4095: 4092: 4090: 4087: 4085: 4082: 4080: 4077: 4075: 4072: 4070: 4067: 4065: 4062: 4060: 4057: 4055: 4052: 4050: 4047: 4045: 4042: 4040: 4037: 4035: 4032: 4030: 4027: 4025: 4022: 4020: 4017: 4016: 4014: 4007: 4006: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3994: 3990: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3966:Ark Encounter 3963: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3942: 3938: 3932: 3930: 3924: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3913:Conservapedia 3910: 3900: 3899: 3895: 3890: 3879: 3876: 3870: 3869: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3854: 3850: 3845: 3839: 3835: 3833: 3829: 3824: 3817: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3791:75.86.176.155 3788: 3782: 3778: 3773: 3769: 3764: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3727: 3725: 3721: 3716: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3681: 3677: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3654: 3648: 3647: 3644: 3640: 3631: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3619:Knowledge:WTA 3616: 3615: 3614: 3609: 3605: 3604:RockMagnetist 3600: 3596: 3592: 3589: 3585: 3580: 3575: 3574: 3569: 3568:RockMagnetist 3566: 3565: 3564: 3559: 3555: 3554:RockMagnetist 3550: 3546: 3542: 3540: 3535: 3531: 3530:RockMagnetist 3525: 3513: 3508: 3503: 3502: 3497: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3468: 3463: 3462: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3446: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3412: 3411: 3407: 3402: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3392: 3387: 3374: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3351: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3335: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3323:Theroadislong 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3312: 3307: 3306: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3284: 3282: 3278: 3277:word to avoid 3271:Article title 3266: 3262: 3257: 3251: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3230: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3207: 3205: 3193: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3174: 3166: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3145: 3141: 3138: 3128: 3124: 3119: 3113: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3082: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3072: 3068: 3063: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3043: 3040: 3037: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3017: 3009: 3005: 3000: 2994: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2918: 2914: 2909: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2890: 2885: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2867: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2859: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2835: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2815:Conservapedia 2811: 2810: 2807: 2804: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2720: 2719: 2715: 2710: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2698: 2694: 2693:RockMagnetist 2689: 2688: 2687: 2684: 2683: 2679: 2674: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2646: 2642: 2641:RockMagnetist 2635: 2634: 2629: 2625: 2624:RockMagnetist 2613: 2610: 2602: 2597: 2591: 2578: 2577: 2570: 2567: 2565: 2562: 2560: 2557: 2555: 2552: 2550: 2547: 2545: 2542: 2540: 2537: 2535: 2532: 2530: 2527: 2525: 2522: 2520: 2517: 2515: 2512: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2502: 2500: 2497: 2495: 2492: 2490: 2487: 2485: 2482: 2480: 2477: 2475: 2472: 2470: 2467: 2465: 2462: 2460: 2457: 2455: 2452: 2451: 2448: 2444: 2442: 2440: 2434: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2413: 2408: 2401: 2400: 2381: 2380: 2378: 2376: 2375: 2370: 2367: 2365: 2364: 2359: 2358: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2346: 2343: 2340: 2337: 2334: 2331: 2328: 2325: 2322: 2319: 2316: 2312: 2310: 2306: 2295: 2293: 2292: 2266: 2263: 2260: 2256: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2241:False dilemma 2238: 2235: 2232: 2231:State atheism 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2195: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2185: 2180: 2176: 2173: 2169: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2137: 2133: 2130: 2126: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107:Be consistent 2101: 2097: 2094: 2090: 2087: 2084: 2081: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2072: 2068: 2063: 2062: 2056: 2053: 2051: 2048: 2046: 2043: 2041: 2038: 2037: 2035: 2032: 2031: 2023: 2020: 2016: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010:Core articles 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1999: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1988: 1985: 1982: 1979: 1976: 1973: 1971: 1968: 1965: 1962: 1960: 1957: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1946: 1944: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1934: 1932: 1927: 1926: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1903: 1900: 1899: 1896: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1870: 1865: 1862: 1858: 1857: 1853: 1847: 1844: 1841: 1837: 1836: 1824: 1820: 1814: 1811: 1810: 1807: 1790: 1786: 1785: 1780: 1777: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1762: 1759: 1756: 1752: 1751: 1739: 1735: 1729: 1726: 1725: 1722: 1706:on Knowledge. 1705: 1701: 1700: 1692: 1681: 1679: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1667: 1661: 1658: 1655: 1651: 1650: 1638: 1634: 1628: 1625: 1624: 1621: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1595: 1590: 1584: 1578: 1573: 1571: 1568: 1564: 1563: 1559: 1553: 1550: 1547: 1543: 1542: 1530: 1526: 1520: 1517: 1516: 1513: 1500:Palaeontology 1496: 1492: 1491:palaeontology 1488: 1487: 1479: 1468: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1448: 1447:Palaeontology 1445: 1442: 1438: 1437: 1425: 1421: 1415: 1412: 1411: 1408: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1367:phylogenetics 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1347: 1339: 1333: 1328: 1326: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1314: 1308: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1285: 1281: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1268: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1242: 1234: 1228: 1223: 1221: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1209: 1203: 1200: 1197: 1193: 1192: 1180: 1176: 1170: 1167: 1166: 1163: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1137:pseudohistory 1134: 1133:pseudoscience 1130: 1126: 1125: 1120: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1108: 1102: 1099: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1079: 1075: 1069: 1066: 1065: 1062: 1045: 1044: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1026: 1018: 1007: 1005: 1002: 998: 997: 993: 987: 984: 981: 977: 976: 964: 960: 954: 951: 950: 947: 930: 926: 922: 921: 916: 913: 909: 908: 904: 898: 895: 892: 888: 887: 870: 866: 865: 861: 857: 851: 848: 847: 844: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 810: 805: 804: 803: 794: 788: 783: 781: 778: 774: 773: 769: 756: 753: 750: 746: 745: 741: 737: 731: 723: 722: 712: 708: 703: 702: 694: 690: 686: 682: 679: 675: 674: 667: 662: 654: 652: 651: 647: 644: 640: 639: 635: 633: 632: 628: 625: 621: 620: 616: 614: 613: 609: 606: 602: 601: 597: 594: 591: 590: 585: 581: 577: 576: 571: 567: 563: 562: 561: 560:good articles 555: 552: 549: 545: 544: 529: 525: 521: 516: 515: 508: 501: 497: 493: 488: 487: 480: 473: 470: 467: 461: 454: 450: 446: 440: 435: 429: 420: 414: 408: 400: 394: 388: 386: 378: 372: 366: 360: 352: 350: 345: 334: 330: 319: 315: 311: 309: 308: 302: 299: 297: 293: 289: 285: 279: 275: 271: 267: 255: 251: 243: 242: 238: 233: 225: 222: 219: 214: 207: 205: 204: 192: 191: 187: 184: 180: 178: 174: 171: 167: 165: 161: 158: 154: 152: 148: 144: 142: 138: 135: 134:pseudoscience 131: 128: 126: 122: 121: 120: 118: 114: 104: 95: 94: 87: 85: 81: 77: 73: 68: 66: 62: 58: 57:pseudoscience 54: 49: 46: 42: 41: 34: 31: 29: 28: 19: 3997: 3996: 3986: 3933: 3929:Donald Trump 3925: 3909:culture wars 3906: 3884: 3862: 3783: 3779: 3776: 3728: 3675: 3649: 3636: 3571: 3499: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3448:BiologicalMe 3421:BiologicalMe 3409: 3400: 3372: 3355: 3338: 3303: 3299: 3291: 3287: 3285: 3280: 3274: 3231: 3216:David Koresh 3208: 3202: 3182: 3173: 3157: 3153: 3144: 3136: 3091: 3087: 3012: 2957: 2945:AndyTheGrump 2924: 2920: 2886: 2871: 2865: 2854: 2772: 2727: 2717: 2712:the dog. Esq 2708: 2681: 2676:the dog. Esq 2672: 2636: 2619: 2611: 2609: 2595: 2436: 2372: 2371: 2361: 2360: 2342: 2335: 2329: 2323: 2317: 2303: 2297: 2248: 2244: 2237:False choice 2223: 2222: 2221: 2210: 2208: 2199: 2198: 2187: 2186: 2142: 2141: 2114:layout style 2106: 2105: 2065: 2064: 2003: 2002: 1994: 1983: 1977: 1966: 1955: 1937: 1931:project page 1928: 1907: 1867: 1818: 1782: 1733: 1697: 1632: 1603:project page 1592: 1588: 1524: 1484: 1419: 1344: 1279: 1255:Christianity 1246:Christianity 1239: 1202:Christianity 1174: 1122: 1073: 1041: 1034:project page 1023: 958: 918: 855: 816:articles to 807: 800: 799: 736:WikiProjects 719: 692: 665: 648: 629: 611: 610: 575:reassessment 573: 558: 557: 553: 512: 507: 484: 479: 460: 434: 419: 405: 399: 382: 370: 358: 328: 305: 303: 300: 295: 284:Thomas Nagel 281: 265: 249: 240: 234: 231: 220: 188: 175: 162: 149: 139: 123: 110: 69: 50: 3687:Hob Gadling 3662:BRealAlways 3235:BRealAlways 3220:BRealAlways 3160:: 263–289. 3035:Doug Weller 3019:BRealAlways 2975:BRealAlways 2961:BRealAlways 2930:BRealAlways 2834:BRealAlways 2819:Hob Gadling 2787:BRealAlways 2412:Creationism 2251:this merge 2194:Agnosticism 1591:is part of 1379:systematics 934:Creationism 925:Creationism 897:Creationism 650:Peer review 570:renominated 520:December 20 500:pp. 31 – 33 492:December 20 278:creationism 274:ID movement 4013:Categories 3952:tgeorgescu 3806:tgeorgescu 3639:dave souza 3623:dave souza 3137:References 3099:tgeorgescu 3090:. We sing 2750:Tgeorgescu 2445:Archives: 2305:To-do list 2170:Watch the 2161:neologisms 2100:to-do list 1938:Quick help 1789:discussion 1150:Skepticism 1141:skepticism 1101:Skepticism 1038:discussion 333:Kitzmiller 65:designated 3755:), etc. 3212:Jim Jones 1709:Astronomy 1704:Astronomy 1660:Astronomy 724:is rated 449:August 10 423:Dembski: 170:astrology 157:Time Cube 78:, or any 3974:Dimadick 3701:WP:GEVAL 3599:WP:LABEL 3343:Bishonen 3181:(2003). 2894:WP:ABIAS 2129:info box 1998:Be civil 1383:taxonomy 831:Religion 809:Religion 755:Religion 685:deletion 655:Reviewed 636:Delisted 3999:PING me 3989:Valjean 3893:Neonate 3848:Neonate 3827:Neonate 3787:WP:NPOV 3767:Neonate 3719:Neonate 3653:WP:NPOV 3260:Neonate 3165:2952523 3122:Neonate 3066:Neonate 3003:Neonate 2912:Neonate 2875:Valjean 2840:Mr Fink 2775:Mr Fink 2732:Mr Fink 2658:Mr Fink 2596:90 days 2421:history 2363:Cleanup 2333:refresh 2321:history 2259:Atheism 2249:against 2177:Always 2136:Atheism 2080:userbox 2071:be bold 2045:history 1910:on the 1883:Atheism 1874:atheism 1846:Atheism 1821:on the 1736:on the 1635:on the 1608:Geology 1599:geology 1552:Geology 1527:on the 1422:on the 1282:on the 1177:on the 1129:science 1076:on the 961:on the 858:on the 726:B-class 595:Process 3680:WP:NOT 3658:WP:COI 3456:oppose 3452:oppose 3390:(talk) 3380:Pepper 3358:Vsmith 3250:WP:BRD 3081:WP:COI 3058:... — 2979:WP:AFD 2783:WP:COI 2374:Expand 2211:Expand 2200:Create 2078:Add a 2033:To do 1728:Bottom 1369:, and 732:scale. 617:Listed 598:Result 3888:Paleo 3843:Paleo 3840:). — 3822:Paleo 3762:Paleo 3714:Paleo 3579:help! 3507:help! 3467:help! 3383:Beast 3311:help! 3255:Paleo 3162:JSTOR 3117:Paleo 3061:Paleo 3048:WP:OR 3016:McSly 2998:Paleo 2983:McSly 2907:Paleo 2709:Roxy, 2673:Roxy, 2447:Index 2327:watch 2239:into 2055:purge 2050:watch 713:This 146:work. 3993:talk 3978:talk 3956:talk 3941:talk 3810:talk 3795:talk 3743:and 3691:talk 3666:talk 3643:talk 3627:talk 3608:talk 3558:talk 3534:talk 3487:talk 3439:talk 3425:talk 3410:wooF 3401:Roxy 3362:talk 3347:tålk 3327:talk 3239:talk 3224:talk 3214:and 3187:ISBN 3103:talk 3039:talk 3023:talk 2987:talk 2965:talk 2949:talk 2934:talk 2879:talk 2866:math 2844:talk 2823:talk 2791:talk 2754:talk 2736:talk 2718:wooF 2697:talk 2682:wooF 2662:talk 2645:talk 2628:talk 2315:edit 2307:for 2253:here 2152:and 2120:and 2069:and 2040:edit 1902:High 1813:High 1627:High 1519:High 1414:High 1381:and 1274:High 1169:High 1139:and 1068:High 850:High 820:and 818:good 693:keep 691:was 592:Date 526:)., 524:2005 498:)., 496:2005 453:2005 224:edit 218:view 59:and 51:The 3995:) ( 3958:) 3812:) 3595:WTA 3591:Guy 3573:Guy 3501:Guy 3461:Guy 3373:far 3305:Guy 3290:or 3105:) 2247:or 2245:for 953:Top 822:1.0 367:. 4015:: 4003:) 3980:) 3943:) 3896:– 3851:– 3830:– 3797:) 3770:– 3722:– 3693:) 3668:) 3641:, 3625:, 3601:. 3551:? 3489:) 3441:) 3427:) 3364:) 3345:| 3329:) 3302:. 3298:, 3263:– 3241:) 3226:) 3158:26 3156:. 3125:– 3112:Me 3069:– 3025:) 3006:– 2989:) 2967:) 2951:) 2936:) 2915:– 2881:) 2846:) 2825:) 2793:) 2756:) 2738:) 2664:) 2167:). 2156:). 2124:). 2116:, 1933:. 1365:, 1361:, 1357:, 1135:, 1131:, 522:, 494:, 451:, 379:. 348:^ 329:A3 294:, 266:A2 250:A1 3991:( 3976:( 3954:( 3939:( 3885:— 3808:( 3793:( 3689:( 3664:( 3660:. 3610:) 3606:( 3581:) 3577:( 3560:) 3556:( 3536:) 3532:( 3509:) 3505:( 3485:( 3469:) 3465:( 3437:( 3423:( 3406:. 3360:( 3352:. 3325:( 3313:) 3309:( 3237:( 3222:( 3194:. 3167:. 3101:( 3094:. 3021:( 2985:( 2963:( 2947:( 2932:( 2877:( 2842:( 2836:: 2832:@ 2821:( 2789:( 2752:( 2734:( 2714:. 2699:) 2695:( 2678:. 2660:( 2647:) 2643:( 2630:) 2626:( 2377:: 2366:: 2336:· 2330:· 2324:· 2318:· 2311:: 2181:. 2131:) 2102:. 2095:. 2088:. 2073:. 1995:· 1984:· 1978:· 1967:· 1956:· 1914:. 1825:. 1791:. 1740:. 1639:. 1531:. 1426:. 1286:. 1181:. 1080:. 1046:. 965:. 862:. 738:. 695:. 502:. 455:. 409:" 404:" 389:" 381:" 373:" 369:" 361:" 357:" 320:. 221:· 179:: 166:: 153:: 143:: 136:. 127:: 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.