Talk:Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

The central issue

Cut from article:

The central issue of the essay is the role of creation and evolution in public education in the United States. The essay is aimed at the intelligent lay reader who has religious feelings, and is unsure of the validity of biological evolution.

I just read the essay, and I didn't see any mention of the U.S. *or* public education. Did I skim it too fast?

I grasped rather that the central issue of the essay is that evolution can take place without the supernatural intervention of God. This is the most common claim made by pro-evolutionists and was by no means hard to find in the essay. Uncle Ed 16:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The essay was published in The American Biology Teacher. It is aimed at teachers (who read The American Biology Teacher who have theistic beliefs, and could potentially be teaching "creation science" and its ilk in the classroom (remember this is 1973, post-1968 (Epperson v. Arkansas), but pre-1987 (Edwards v. Aguillard). Of course, the principal applies equally to independent schools as well.

Now I have seen it listed as explaining importance of evolution, and the title certainly may give that impression, which it does in a sort of roundabout way, but if I were writing an essay on that subject, I wouldn't attempt to ridicule the arguments of creationists and write an anti-creationist essay, as Dobzhansky does, I would just ignore them entirely and get a lot more biology in. Dunc|☺ 20:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Having recently reread Dobzhansky's American Biology Teacher essay, as well as his presidential address to the American Zoological Society, it seems to me that the central issue of his essay is well expressed from a quotation from his presidential address:

"If the living world has not arisen from common ancestors by means of an evolutionary process, then the fundamental unity of living things is a hoax and their diversity is a joke."

Although he does not use that statement in his essay, he alludes to it in his criticism of one of the early antievolutionists, P. H. Gosse, who had proposed that fossils were created by God in the places where they were found. Dobzhansky saw this as blasphemous, implying God was deceitful, reflecting his earlier statement that without evolution "the fundamental unity of living things is a hoax and their diversity is a joke." These two themes then provide two of the chapter headings for his essay.

What the article refers to as the central issue is more properly referred to as the "underlying theme" or even the "underlying motive", although I don't see any source cited to support the very probable idea that anti-creationism was his motive. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Creationism Category

The entire point of this essay (according to the author, that is) is that Creationism and Evolution can peacefully coexist. I fail to see how that classifies it as anti-creationist. I'm not trying to push any sort of agenda, so if you want to leave it incorrectly categorized, then go for it.the1physicist 02:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Quotations

Should these quotes be transferred to wikiquote? 134.83.1.225 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally think they fit well both here and at wikiquote. There's not so many so as to overwhelm the article, and they do add something I think. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Obscure statement

The following made little sense to me:

The phrase "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is often used by those opposing creationism.

It argues that Christianity and evolutionary biology are compatible. Despite this, many use the phrase in a way which the original was not intended.

Many would argue that "in biology" includes anthropology, and just three years later Richard Dawkins published The Selfish Gene arguing for universal Darwinism.

I've rephrased it, taking the inference that Dawkins is being cited because of his support for atheism rather than theistic evolution, though I don't know if he has actually cited or used the phrase. Note that universal Darwinism is a redirect to Darwinism, and seems to be a term associated with Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea rather than Dawkins. .. dave souza, talk 09:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Phrase

A little factual beckground:

• The phrase "creationism or its variant called intelligent design" is obviously biased, because it takes it for granted that ID advocates are nothing but CS advocates in disguise, and that spelling out this notion is an objective assessment of facts.
• So, with Revision of 13:10, 4 December 2007, I appended to the a.m. phrase the warning , with the explicit motivation "Biased opinion - needs balancing".
• With edit of 07:35, 13 December 2007 (that is the revision immediately prior to the Current), User Guettarda removed the warning, with the following rather careless motivation: "no, it doesn't [need balancing]".

As I consider the warning inserted by me sufficiently well motivated as not to be removed out of hand without prior discussion, and anyway certainly not with such non-existent motivation as the one non-provided by User Guettarda, not only I am going to reintroduce a.m. warning, but I am going to append a: {{POV-section}} at the top of the whole section The phrase of main article Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.

Also, the present is a formal warning to User Guettarda, or whoever may be concerned, under Wikipedia:Edit war prolicy WP:EW not to try and engage in any further "counter-revision", without prior discussion on this page and section.

Thank you for the fair play. Miguel de Servet (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"The phrase "creationism or its variant called intelligent design" is obviously biased, because it takes it for granted that ID advocates are nothing but CS advocates in disguise" - this is well supported by academic scholarship and it has been established by a court court. If you don't know what you're talking about, you should ask for help. Don't tag an article simply because you are confused. Guettarda (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your WP:EW warning about "counter-reversions" - I explained my revert. You have yet to explain why you would rather tag a page than educate yourself about the subject. Guettarda (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The tag links to the Wikipedia:Describing points of view essay which starts by stating that "The article should represent the POV of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented." Suitable sources have now been added. .. dave souza, talk 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

External references

The article referenced at PBS has numerous transcription errors; I found only one in the PDF. I recommend the PBS reference be eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.56.37 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation Needed tags

A series of recent edits [1][2][3] have added Citation Needed tags to the article, without making clear what claims in the text need citations. As I read the concerned paragraph (I was responsible for much of the paragraph's present form), all the claims in the paragraph draw from the text of Dobzhansky's short article and, in accordance with WP:DUPCITES, combining such citations to a single source "is the best practice on Wikipedia". --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Would the editors who are adding Citation Needed tags please provide full explanation on the tags ( {{Citation needed|reason=Your explanation here|date=August 2017}} ) and/or by discussing the problems they perceive on the talk page. Since they are IPs this is the only way I know to contact them. I will have to revert their edits until they reply. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)