Talk:Anti-evolution

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Creationism

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles

Redirected[edit]

I redirected the page to Objections to evolution, which is a more substantial article on the same topic. I hope that no one objects. Jaque Hammer (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the articles should stay seperate, as they are not related. The Anti-evolution page has been on wikipedia for years, it does not need to be merged with objections to evolution, the objections to evolution page mainly talks about creationism. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the redirect. This page doesn't cover anything the Objections to Evolution article doesn't (or shouldn't). Also, that a page has been here for a while is not a justification for it being here. If the other article doesn't fully cover the topic, then it should be expanded. — Jess· Δ ♥ 23:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i disagree with the merge.

the objections to evolution page discusses creationism only, if the merge happens valid information will be lost

anti-evolution page has on it:

Parallel Genome Assembly ,Catastrophism ,Raëlian cosmology ,Ancient astronauts , animal spiritualism, lamarckism etc

none of those are found on the objections to evolution page. The anti-evolution page has been up for years, it's a great disambiguation page and should not be deleted or merged. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to each of your comments above already. That the page has been around for a while isn't justification for it being here. Further, if the Objections to Evolution article is incomplete, then it should be expanded. This page should not be necessary in light of that one, particularly since it doesn't reference a specific phrase or topic of inquiry which is sufficiently distinct from the existing Objections to Evolution article. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that (i) the Creationism movement was originally known as the anti-evolution movement (hence creationist organisations such as the Anti-Evolution League of America & the Evolution Protest Movement) and (ii) that creationism remains, by far the most significant form of anti-evolution (thus meaning that we can equate the two without giving WP:UNDUE weight to the "tiny minority" of non-creationist anti-evolution). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would further point out that, except for Creationism, and its subform Intelligent design, everything else on this list is either not anti-evolution (Parallel Genome Assembly & Lamarckism are both forms of evolution) or only very tangential to the topic (none of Raëlian cosmology, Ancient astronauts or Catastrophism even discuss evolution). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge (as bare redirect), per reasoning given above. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge The other minor anti-evolution views, if that's what they are, should be mentioned in a section at the bottom of the other article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You have misunderstood what Parallel Genome Assembly is, and you are misrepesenting Senapathys theory. I know you have never heard of it before, but if you wish to understand this theory you would need to buy the book called Independent Birth of Organisms. A New Theory that Distinct Organisms Arose Independently from the Primordial Pond, Showing that Evolutionary Theories are Fundamentally Incorrect by Periannan Senapathy, in this book he discusses how Parallel Genome Assembly is opposed to evolution.

Back of the book reads:

There is no scientific theory that has ever been propounded to explain the origin and diversity of organisms on earth that does not involve evolution. Independent Birth of Organisms is the first ever written book that proposes a new theory for the origin and diversity of life on earth without involving evolution in any manner. It explains how all of the existing molecular, organismal and fossil evidence supports this revolutionary new theory, and it easily accommodates all of the contra-evolution evidence that has dogged evolutionists since Darwin. This is the only theory that can explain both the commonality and distinctions among organisms. How can a complex organism come about essentially from earth itself? Can even the human species originate directly from a primordial pond? Can life and organisms more advanced than us exist in other star systems in the Universe? The book shows that the answer is yes to all these questions. The book also shows how Charles Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species is fundamentally incorrect, showing where Darwin went wrong. -- The Author (Periannan Senapathy).

Raëlian cosmology, Ancient astronauts and Catastrophism also reject the standard model of evolution.

Raelian cosmology is atheistic intelligent design. Ancient Astronauts believe humans were seeded or genetically manipulated by exterrestrials. Most Catastrophists also support an alternative type of evolution.

86.10.119.131 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with the merge, forget my previous comments. thanks 86.10.119.131 (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, so page changed to a bare redirect. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]