Creation vs. evolution debate

creation vs. evolution debate was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.

Do not let the word debate fool you. This article does not describe or define a debate. This article IS a debate. An article about a debate should define who is debating, what the motives of the debators are and who starts the debate. This article doesn't do any of these things, but it does introduce every issue raised by creationists without saying that these issues are raised by creationists. Not only is this a debate and not a description of a debate, it is a biased debate. Like most conflicts between creation and evolution, this article was initiated by biblically literal creationists. It does not describe the formalized system of argument between any two sides. It merely defines and states the problems that creationists have with evolution and backs them up with citations. I have no doubt that the major contributors to this article will appear here and vote no (Ungtss, Phillip J. Rayment) and say that the article presents both sides of the debate. This is not true. The most major contributor (Ungtss) has admitted to being biased toward creationism. Please vote yes for the sake of NPOV. Bensaccount 21:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. putting my 2 cents in just to make sure mr. accounts does not win by a majority of one. the discussion history pages will reveal that Mr. Accounts is doing this because he has a personal problem with me, whom he has repeatedly called a moron and liar. Anyone who thinks the page is unfair is welcome to come help me make it fair. Anyone who thinks there is no debate at all (as Mr. Accounts has repeatedly argued) or that evolutionists never debate creationists but only creationists debate evolutionists (which he has also repeatedly argued) is welcome to vote with Mr. Accounts. Ungtss 21:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm an unremitting evolutionist who believes that the best way to keep creationists in line is to expose their silly arguments. This article seems to me to describe the debate; I don't note any prejudice in how it presents its points. Bensaccount appears a wee bit thin-skinned on this. Denni☯ 21:43, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think creationism is junk too, but don't think this is the place to hold the debate. Sometimes disagreement is going to happen in articles, and we'll need to describe perspectives. The disagreement shouldn't be the main show though -- Wikipedia is not a place to have debates. --Improv 16:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I think this is appropriate for an entry of some sort, but the text inside is pretty POV. I think the main problem is that it is written with too much authority, for example: "Evolutionary theory and Creationism are not mutually exclusive" -- says who? Depends on who's defining the terms. Maybe "Some say evolutionary theory and creationism are not mutually exclusive," then go on to discuss who believes it. But as it stands, the article takes too many liberties and assumes way too much with its authoritative language, for such a hotly debated topic. I'd vote a major cleanup, rather than delete. Katefan0 21:45, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm with Denni on this. It is very important to present this debate as accurately as possible. I also agreee with Katefan0 that there are many uncited and undocumented statements in the current page. But I think the page is coming along with great strides and advances. If you would peruse the Talk Page, I think you would see that there is a major effort at collecting good citations from published scholars and polls to ensure that NPOV is reached by the "final stage of this rocket." ---Rednblu | Talk 22:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. I don't know which way to go with this one. The debate is an issue which needs to be covered, but I think the article is terrible. Its very long and therefore difficult to read, certainly has POV problems and uses far too many scientific terms to be understandable by the average person. There are also far too many external links strewn throughout and stacks of other minor issues. I'm not convinced that a good article can be salvaged from it. I'd like to see Creation vs. evolution debate/temp created, by people who are not biased either way, containing just the facts and nothing more. [[User:David Johnson|David Johnson [T|C]]] 23:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• No vote. I think the article is in desperate need of cleanup. In particular, it's excessively long, and probably redundant, since many of the topics covered have their own full-length articles. I hesitate to vote either way on deletion (1) because I'm not sure if it's actually redundant or not, and (2) because I'm severely biased. Aerion 01:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and fix it if it's broke. VfD is not a dispute resolution process. Gazpacho 04:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and edit down for length, wordiness. A quick peek at some of the article strikes me a rather balanced. Besides, listing an article because the editors believe one way or another is not valid if they are attempting to be balenced. Good article with potential. hfool 03:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Looking at User_talk:Bensaccount, I see some very disturbing POV statements about the article, including saying the debate is only a debate for the ignorant and considering to make the article a redirect to ignorant. This strikes me very odd, indeed. hfool 03:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, but throw the good material into what should be a host of separate articles. Evolution controversy, evidence in support of evolution, evidence against evolution, et cetera. (If my position matters, I'm an evolutionist.) EventHorizon 04:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's not an adequate discussion of the topic, work through the information and keep what needs to be kept, throw away what needs to be thrown away, and add what needs to be added. It could probably stand to use a better name, perhaps Creationism vs. evolutionism. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 07:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• keep. Yuckfoo 09:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I added the TD tag; I think it's largely unsalvageable morass of POV personal research by creationists, but we do need the article, though it could do with a complete rewrite. Dunc|☺ 12:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• keep. However, it is is serious need of a rewrite. CheeseDreams 14:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• keep. Just because some of us (probably all of us, certainly including Bensaccount) may be biased (i.e. have made up our own minds on the issue) doesn't mean that we can't write an NPOV article, and this one is still under (very active) development. Philip J. Rayment 14:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for the numerous reasons listed above. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 16:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup if necessary. Jeltz 18:11, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
• Reluctantly keep - This is one of the most biased articles I have seen on Wikipedia, but NPOV is not a grounds for deletion. mydogategodshat 20:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable topic but very poor treatment. Needs some poor sod to do a major rewrite, thankless task though this is. Bags not me. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\^talk ]] 21:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It is enough to deal with this kind of pseudoscience under creationism. Martg76 22:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, and send to cleanup for POVectomy. -Sean Curtin 23:46, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Could probably use a cleanup (what article on a subject alarmingly still considered controversial in the USA could not?) This is still a pretty good introduction to the political facets of the debate. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems pretty well balanced to me even though I think Creationism is total crap. Removing or rewriting the last two sections would definitely improve it. ping 07:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cleaned up, still no bloody good. -- GWO
• Keep. This article needs serious work but it will get there eventually. It is important to have this topic covered in wikipedia. Barnaby dawson 18:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. VfD is not cleanup. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. What GRider said. And what Denni said, for that matter. :-) Inky 03:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --Pjacobi 10:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Wait for votes for 7 days. Get a Consensus of 51%. Decide only if participation, as percentage of the total certified wikipedia population, exceeds 2%. Iasson 17:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. New person here and am very keen to see what the arguments are against evolution. It was my main reason for looking on this site. I don't understand much about science and am not christian either but seems to me evolutionary theory is the prevailing orthodoxy and I want to know what the arguments are against it. But please could people help a)clean it up and b)add to it so I know what other theories are out there. Many thanks [Lisa]
  • Sorry Lisa I'm afraid you have to be a registered user of wikipedia with a fair few edits to vote. It won't effect the outcome here clearly but its our rule. Barnaby dawson 21:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Both creationism and evolutionism are dogmas based mostly on faith. One supernatural and one natural. Neither can been proven, though I think evolution takes a lot more faith. I second the motion by the user who said create a Creationism vs. evolutionism article. If not, clean this'n up. --Doctorcherokee 21:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Barney - regarding your rules on voting. I went to the article. It said vote. I voted. If you don't want people to do that you should make it clearer. Believe me I don't care if my vote counts or not but don't lecture me about my ignorance when your rules are unclear. Lisa

Lisa, you bring up a point that should perhaps be mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. There are many policies and layers of policies at Wikipedia, and very few of them are written in stone. Good luck! Fire Star 00:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Creationism is fiction, but many human beings actually believe this fiction, and it's a good idea to have an article on this ongoing debate (as it were) between the irrational creationists and the rational people who understand the science fact of evolution. This vote doesn't reflect a full review of the current writing of the article, but that an article on this subject should exist. -- Stevietheman 19:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: how many edits do I need before I can vote on something? I got the right to vote in a Federal election the day I turned 18. Do I have to be part of the cabal with a dozen sockpuppet trolls before I can make myself heard? If so, why not just get rid of the deletion policy and leave it all up the admins? Don't bite the newbies. PS. Keep the article - deleting it won't make the debate go away, no matter how much you try to brainwash people (and you can work out my religious beliefs for yourselves). Alphax (talk) 05:26, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Deletions are actually performed by and can be reversed by admins or sysops. Over time, much like the British constitution, admins have agreed and disagreed on different deletion policies, and the consensus has developed on a VfD policy of regarding the votes of experienced editors as having more weight than those of newbies, and regarding anonymous votes as having almost no weight at all. So, it may or may not be right, or fair, I don't know, but it is the consensus of those with the delete buttons. If people who disagree with it manage to come up with the arguments to convince enough admins to go along with a new policy (short of cutting off Charles I of England's head, one hopes) then it can change. Fire Star 07:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another policy could be the Self Addressed Stamped Envelope. Require from everyone who wants to participate to the voting procedure, to send an SASE envelop to the wikipedia adress. Wikipedia will send back a pair of RSA keys, that can be used to vote on every matter here. Fire Star said:"the votes of experienced editors as having more weight than those of newbies". You are wrong. The principle here is one person, one vote. The problem with a newby is to proove he/she is a person and not a Sock_puppet. As long as he can proove this, his vote counts equaly to the vote of an old (experienced?) person, because of the one-person one-vote principle.Iasson 08:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Uh, one person one vote? This is not a federal election. Wikipedia has the right to make and enforce the rules that a majority deem proper. Personally I think it's a good policy to require someone to make a few edits on articles before they start voting whether to keep or delete items -- it's not hard. A modicum of interest in Wikipedia is all it takes to make a few edits around here. And it keeps people from using sockpuppets to influence the outcome of a vote. Katefan0 13:45, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, if for no other reason, I would rather that the Lisas of the world find out about the debate here on the Wikipedia than elsewhere. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 07:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Only keep if you can get someone to do a major rewrite. Otherwise merge with Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. P Ingerson 12:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• weak keep; as the whole thing is based on faith for either point of view, there are naturally strong emotions flowing into the subject; but i think it worth keeping (even in the current form, after the moves to wikiquote).Lectonar 14:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.