Talk:Charles Darwin

Template:WP1.0

Archived

Discussions to 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC) archived as resolved or stale, please start a new section if you want to revisit any issues. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Honorifics

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Isaac Newton was actually Sir Isaac. Could someone remedy this? JaiyMaxchill (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. MOS:HONORIFIC says it's allowed, but doesn't explicitly say we have to include it. If we do, Sir John Herschel would also get it post 1831, and Sir Charles Lyell at some date, though the ration appears to be once per article. Probably there are some others Anyone else feel it's necessary? . . dave souza, talk 12:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary. HiLo48 (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

MOS:HONORIFIC also explicitly says that the use of the honorific is "strictly optional" except for the "initial use" and in the infobox heading for the person in question, and that "editors should not add honorific titles to already existing instances of a person's name where it is absent." As I read this guideline, I would take the requirement that the honorific must be used with the initial occurrence of the person's name to apply only to the article about the person in question, although I admit that it's not at all clear that this is so. Nevertheless, it seems to me that inclusion of the honorific in the Charles Darwin article is not only unnecessary, but actually disallowed until a consensus can be established to change it. Personally, I would prefer to omit it, but it's not an issue that I can see myself getting all that worked up about if a sufficient number of other editors want it to be included.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

First of all, I am an evolutionist myself, so let it be clear that there's no bias on my part. However, several aspects about the article are an obvious violation of the neutrality expected from an encyclopedia. The phrase "the fact that evolution occurs," for example, is meant purely as a childish challenge towards non-evolutionists, and nothing else. It does not contribute to the quality of the article, offers no information, and will merely serve to increase the schism. The only thing that will be achieved by this is to exasperate non-evolutionists, so that they might not even read further and remain in ignorance about the evolutionary point of view. Many of the people who visit this article may themselves be creationists in doubt of their opinion, and just as they might come to greater open-mindedness, they are put off by the equally biassed opinion of the evolutionists who wrote the article. Whether the theory of evolution is true or not does not matter: as long as we are dealing with theories which are not universally accepted, we should be speaking in terms of these. As long as there are several beliefs, we should, as an encyclopedia, represent each belief. As long as there are people who do not believe a certain theory, we should encourage them to be open to all points of view. This is not a way of "hiding things": removing this does not retract anything from the information offered by the article. On the contrary, by avoiding to take sides, people will be more likely to accept the information we offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovic (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Evolution is validated by strong evidence, hence fact. Surely people dont need to confirm "some people speculate on the theory that the sky might be above us"...it is obvious, supported by heavy evidence, and in all eyes but the staunch religious minded, mainstream. I for one dont feel the need to state the fact that water is a liquid without having to word it correctly in order to please a minority group who belive that water is a metal.

No theory, fact or other, can ever be belived 100%...there will always be those who oppose it. Some people beove the world is flat, some that there is no universe other than earth. If the neutrality balance is changed to suit the stubborn few, then we unbalance it as we are no longer neutral but in bias for the few. It isn't taking sides, but stating the obvious. DarkMithras 31/3/2010

I agree with your statement that "by avoiding to take sides, people will be more likely to accept the information we offer". This is one of the Founding principles of Wikipedia. However, no theory is "universally accepted". Our policies state that we should represent the main scientific/professional viewpoint, which with regards to this topic is that evolution occurs. There is no serious scientific debate about the occurrence of evolution. While there may be a less complete acceptance in the general public, Wikipedia aims to represent the views on a topic proportionally to its significance to the subject (WP:DUE). Your view "As long as there are several beliefs, we should, as an encyclopedia, represent each belief.", is not strictly true; Wikipedia should only represent those beliefs that have gained coverage in reliable sources, and then reflecting the weight those views receive in those sources. Criticism of the theory of evolution itself is more or less immaterial to this article, a biography. Thus, I believe your tag is unfounded and should be removed. IntelligentIntelligensium 20:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Criticism of the theory of evolution itself is more or less immaterial to this article, a biography," so I will spend my energies no further on this. Nonetheless, I do not see the use of objecting full objectivity, and believe it does more harm than good. One note, however: whatever the actual significance of the subjectivity, what bothers me about it is that it very powerfully conveys the intention to convert people to a point of view. This struck me quite strongly when I read it. Even though it does not say that much in itself, because of the reason it was used it will strike creationists as outright insulting. As someone who represents all views and none at all, it did feel just somewhat insulting to me, even though I'm an evolutionist. I wrote more on this on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution_as_theory_and_fact  — [Unsigned comment added by Hypernovic (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 March 2010.]

I have reverted the tag. Most of the arguments are dealt with at Talk:Evolution and its voluminous archives. – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against evolution based on the word theory, implying that it means it is not certain, are spurious. That word is used in many areas of science (relativity is a good example) where the facts demonstrated in that theory are, for all intents and purposes, accepted as the truth as well as it can be demonstrated by science at this time. Use of the word theory does not imply that a totally different, non-scientific explanation of that area of knowledge is seen as possible by scientifically educated people.

Full objectivity, as you seem to want to refer to it, would mean giving weight to every creation theory from every religion that has ever existed. The Christian creation view is held by a small percentage of the world's people and has no significance in the science of this.

Suggesting that Darwin's discoveries weren't facts is a minority Christian creationist strategy and isn't needed here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

We do "give weight" to every creation theory in that we write articles about them, even though we don't necessarily believe them to be true. Moreover, the number of creationists, Christian and otherwise, is in fact, sadly, quite huge. According to one study there's just 1.1 billion atheists, agnostics and pagans in the world, compared to 2.1 billion Christians (of course, not all Christians are creationists, but still). Your saying that it's just a small percentage indicates that you live in a relatively atheist environment, and this might give the illusion that creationism is no longer a problem in the world. It certainly is, and we're not going to solve it by infiltrating bias into our every source of information. If none of the sources are truly accessible to these people's minds, they'll remain to terrorized by their fantasies of hell to dare doubt their faith. Either how, fact is, our beliefs don't matter here; only others', cited beliefs, matter in an encyclopedia.

Also, something might be factual, but that doesn't make it acceptable. Technically, according to any dictionary or encyclopedia the God depicted in the Old Testament satisfies all the criteria for a dictator, a mass murderer, a war criminal, and even a fascist, but what if you'd actually use that sort of description in an encyclopedia or dictionary? It would, of course, be unacceptable, but not because it's not factual.

Careful there, before you accuse someone of using "Christian creationist strategies." I strongly loathe Christianity and creationists alike, but loathing is no excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovic (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That evolution occurs is a fact, but that's not the theory of evolution. The theory describes how and when and why evolution (change from generation to generation) occurs. So it is not biased to say that it occurs, whether people believe it exists or not. Auntie E. (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see WP:MNA (making necessary assumptions), which specifically points out that it is not necessary to address the concerns of creationists in articles about evolutionary biology. Just as it is permissable to write articles on NASA that assume that the moon landings really happened or articles on geology and paleontology that assume the earth is thousands of million years old even though there are certain readers who would dispute both those assumptions. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As a quick glance at the archived history of this talk page will show, this topic has been discussed at great length before, without a clear consensus being reached. The key point, it seems to me, is not what is written but the tone in which it is written. Evolution, as currently understood, is the foundation of modern biology; it would be inappropriate to write an article in the biology domain without making this assumption. So it isn't necessary to address the creationist viewpoint in the article – to do so would not be in accordance with WP principles, as has been pointed out very clearly in the discussion above. However Intelligentsium originally made a different point, I think, namely that the tone of the article suggests that its purpose is to teach or even preach and not to inform, as accurately and as neutrally as possible. Writing as one who has made this point before, I think the article is significantly less 'preachy' than it was, but further improvements may well be possible. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, supporters of the conservative Christian creation view of the world (because, really, that is the only lobby relevant to this discussion) don't seek to inform others, nor inform themselves. They preach. What is written in this article is unlikely to affect their views in the slightest. I see no point in this article pandering to a group of people who have no interest in even considering a view different from their current dogma. It should simply present the facts as discovered by Darwin. HiLo48 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles should be unbiased, but neutrality has its limits. Should the article on the Holocaust not make the assumption that the Holocaust actually happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta G^0 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

All articles must comply with WP:NPOV policy, and this articles carefully follows that policy. If you have a suggestion for another article, please make it on the talk page of that article. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I know it's a bit late, but I agree with the OP. I despise creationism as much as the next guy, but "Suggesting that Darwin's discoveries weren't facts is a minority Christian creationist strategy and isn't needed here," is kind of a ridiculous accusation. Since Darwin's time we've refuted a lot of his ideas, not because he was wrong, but we've made such strides in science that his evolution is quite primitive compared to our views of evolution. Anyways, that's not the point. I don't think the OP is saying that if we say "theory of evolution," we're saying "evolution might not have happened." Evolution is a theory built around many facts. Theories don't become facts; they are disproved by facts or they are supported by facts. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Evolution is a fact or a series of related facts, the theory explains these facts. Even entievolution creationists commonly acknowledge a degree of evolution, while putting religious limits on what they will admit as being the effects of evolution. . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

External links

What is the order of the external link entries? And, should they be pruned back a bit. There seems to be an awful lot of them. Of course, I've just added one :-) Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The aim has been to start with the most useful links, and newer news type links get added at the end. So many worthy websites, a bit hard to decide where to prune but a worthy goal. The one you've added does look rather inaccurate, judging from the synopsis it gives – "Charles Darwin was born into a world just beginning to shake itself loose from biblical creationism. The French Enlightenment produced the first modern evolutionary theories – followed shortly thereafter by Darwin’s own grandfather" is a bit odd as Erasmus preceded Lamarck, and "biblical creationism" in its modern YEC sense was long gone. "The young man who stepped off the Beagle not only believed in evolution – or transmutation as it was then known – but also knew better than anyone how it worked." Oh no he didn't, he had a growing belief in transmutation but no idea of how it worked until his transmutation notebooks began producing useful ideas. He "kept his thoughts secret for more than twenty years" - not very secret, see our article. "All that time, the evidence piled up until finally the pressure was so great that he had to publish." Oh, so Wallace didn't influence that? And according to van Wyhe, Darwin always intended to publish, and was pretty close to his intended timing. But that's enough for now. Hope the radio version is better. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the radio documentary was produced for a long running radio documentary series called Ideas (radio show) with a philosophical bent. The series on Darwin is quite good...but you might be right in pruning it out. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

is this article perfect

if i read this whole pae, will i get a concise view on evolution or what?Jigglyfidders (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you read this page, you'll read a concise biography of Charles Darwin. If you want to learn about evolution, read evolution or introduction to evolution. . . dave souza, talk 17:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Olvew, 28 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The derogatory term "dog-eat dog" should be removed from the sentence "Writers used natural selection to argue for various, often contradictory, ideologies such as laissez-faire dog-eat dog capitalism" Olvew (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me exactly what you're objecting to in the use of this term. It's certainly widely used in this context, referring to both capitalism and social darwinism. Mikenorton (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I do think that the sentence is 'dubious' - it sounds a bit like original research, unless backed up with ref examples. The whole thing is;

Writers used natural selection to argue for various, often contradictory, ideologies such as laissez-faire dog-eat dog capitalism, racism, warfare, colonialism and imperialism.

As I think this warrants further discussion here (leading to consensus to change/leave, I am removing the 'edit semi-protected' for now - pending further input here.  Chzz  ►  18:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Searching on '"dog eat dog capitalism" Darwin', turns up many examples of use similar to that in the article e.g. "Certainly, apologists for dog-eat dog capitalism easily found elements to their liking" from the 'The Cambridge Companion to Darwin' by Hodge & Radick,[1]. Mikenorton (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there are many examples of this usage elsewhere is not of itself relevant, I think. The issue in Wikipedia is surely whether it is a neutral statement of fact. Can you find a source where someone uses natural selection as an argument to support what they call dog-eat-dog capitalism? I suspect not. The phrase "dog-eat-dog capitalism" is only likely to be used in a hostile way. I can't see what it adds. Why is it not enough just to say ".. such as capitalism, racism, ..."? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't gave a problem with the neutrality of the term. I just see it as slang and sloppy writing. Not encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that 'laissez-faire capitalism' is the type of unregulated capitalism that gets known as 'dog-eat dog', so it's probably superflous anyway. Mikenorton (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of the text (which I don't see above) is that some writers misused Darwin's ideas in various ways, one of which was to advocate that dog-eat dog capitalism was natural and therefore good. Removing the dog description would lose the point. I suppose the solution is to find what a source actually said, and reference that, or as Mikenorton says, the text might be regarded as redundant. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Request to edit the first sentence.

As it currently stands:

Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist[I] who showed that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection.

Please change it to:

Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist[I] who theorized that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection.

This way it is more neutral and scientifically accurate, since there is no definitive proof 'showing' that "all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors." Tdbostick (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Tim Bostick 05 June 2010Tdbostick (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No. There are many sources showing that what Darwin said is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. You would be very hard pressed to find a reliable source acceptable to Wikipedia saying otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No. This wording has been rejected numerous times. We do not use creationist language that seeks to convey Darwin's work as if he had just some vague ideas, which would be the understanding of "theorized" on the street. ≡ CUSH ≡ 11:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I was merely using the wording already within the sentence, scientific theory, to advocate the use of the verb theorized. There is no way my proposed wording advocates creationism over atheistic evolution. Perhaps Cush's own religious views, atheism, are influencing his own neutrality. Science is not a democracy. If there is doubt in the veracity of a theory, the scientific method demands that those options be explored before asserting something to be 100% true. Unfortunately this can never happen with evolution vs. creation, because both explanations are inherently religious in nature - one assuming there is no god, and the other assuming there might be. However, until it is possible to reproduce millions of years of evolution in a laboratory to empirically determine that "all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors," both evolution and creationism will remain theories best suited to the category of religious conjecture.

The first sentence of this article is not neutral - a fact now amply demonstrated by three comments to a 4th proposed-change comment. Why don't we conduct a linguistic experiment: change showed to theorized (or proposed for linguistic purists who don't like seeing needless repetition), and see whether or not it raises any more neutrality objections?

Tdbostick (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Tim Bostick

This has been exhaustively discussed, most recently in November 09. Please, unless there is something startlingly new, let's not start this off again so soon after the last time. May I ask if the proposer has read the previous on this yet?--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, based on this article itself and the history of the evolutionary theory, it is clear that Darwin only touched the tip of the evolutionary iceberg and in no way conclusively demonstrated within his lifetime that evolutionary theory is fact. While it may be argued by most (but not all) scientists that the past 150 years of science have 'shown' evolution to be true, Darwin did not achieve this. Tdbostick (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Tim Bostick

The consensus of editors is that "showed" is the correct word. You are not bringing any new arguments to the discussion. Go read the old discussion and then maybe you can reply in terms of the effort that has already be devoted to this question. de Bivort 16:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I just glanced at the Nov 09 archived discussion. I still believe the word theorize, which is internally consistent with the remainder of the sentence (cf. scientific theory), would.Tdbostick (talk)Tim Bostick —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

Consensus disagrees with you. Please produce some new arguments backed by relevant and reliable sources, or drop the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now thoroughly read the discussion in Nov 09 and saw nothing about a suggestion to change showed to theorized. As far as I'm concerned, this matter has not been satisfactorily settled. Darwin didn't show that one species developed from another any more than modern science can show this in a laboratory. Both are still well within the realm of theory. Even if 100% of all scientists believed from the bottom of their hearts that all species descended from common ancestors, until they can show it in a scientific experiment, it will remain a theory. And even if they can show this, Darwin could not.

Did you not look here? "Theorized" is one of the many words that was considered and rejected. Also demonstrated in that conversation: that "realized" is common usage in scientific publications when someone provides strong evidence for a hypothesis - would you object to that language? I want to assume you are approaching this discussion in good faith, but until you realize this topic has been covered already, respect that work by prior editors, and advance an argument not already in the previous discussion, rehashing old arguments will get you nowhere. de Bivort 07:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've now read that page. Theorized was rejected by one user, scepticboy, using a poorly-worded, weak argument, based on his own preconceived notions (judging from his username). "Unrefutable (sic) evidence?" I happen to personally know tenured professors in the life sciences at the German, state-run university I work for who would disagree strongly with the supposition that either Darwin or modern scientists have irrefutable evidence for the theory of evolution. Until I see a linguistically sound reason to keep a biased word such as showed and reject a internally consistent word such as theorized (or theorised) to describe what Charles Darwin actually did, I will not let this matter rest. It's amazing how much bias I have exposed in the editorial board of Wikipedia with this minor editing suggestion. Tdbostick (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Tim Bostick—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdbostick (talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Voting is evil, but surely in this case we may make an exception: there is only one "vote", among many, for this change; one editor piling on accusations of bias against the "editorial board" isn't going to change that position. Is it time to draw a line under this, to "let the matter rest" indeed? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll rename the Christianity article to Theory of Christianity. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, here are some references supporting my request. Sorry for the slow reaction - I'm a bit new to this.

Keep in mind this is coming from a linguist's point of view, not from a scientist's. Perhaps my ability to not get emotionally involved with something as sensitive as the theory/religion of evolution is to an atheistic naturalist, or the theory/religion of intelligent design is to a theist, helps me see how biased some words are.

Main Entry: the·o·rize Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-ˌrīz, ˈthir-ˌīz\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): the·o·rized; the·o·riz·ing Date: 1638 intransitive verb

to form a theory : speculate

transitive verb 1 : to form a theory about 2 : to propose as a theory — the·o·ri·za·tion \ˌthē-ə-rə-ˈzā-shən, ˌthir-ə-\ noun — the·o·riz·er noun

theorize (also theorise)

 • verb form a theory or theories about something.
 — DERIVATIVES theorization noun.

Main Entry: show Pronunciation: \ˈshō\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): showed \ˈshōd\; shown \ˈshōn\ or showed; show·ing Etymology: Middle English shewen, showen, from Old English scēawian to look, look at, see; akin to Old High German scouwōn to look, look at, and probably to Latin cavēre to be on one's guard Date: 12th century transitive verb 1 : to cause or permit to be seen : exhibit <showed pictures of the baby> 2 : to offer for sale <stores were showing new spring suits> 3 : to present as a public spectacle : perform 4 : to reveal by one's condition, nature, or behavior <showed themselves to be cowards> 5 : to give indication or record of <an anemometer shows wind speed> 6 a : to point out : direct attention to <showed the view from the terrace> b : conduct, usher <showed me to an aisle seat> 7 : accord, bestow <shows them no mercy> 8 a : to set forth : declare b : allege, plead —used especially in law <show cause> 9 a : to demonstrate or establish by argument or reasoning <show a plan to be faulty> b : inform, instruct <showed me how to solve the problem> 10 : to present (an animal) for judging in a show

show verb (past part. shown or showed) 1 be, allow, or make visible. 2 exhibit or produce for inspection or viewing. 3 represent or depict in art. 4 display or allow to be perceived (a quality, emotion, or characteristic). 5 demonstrate or prove. 6 treat (someone) with (a specified quality). 7 explain or demonstrate something to. 8 conduct or lead: show them in, please. 9 (also show up) informal arrive for an appointment or at a gathering. N. Amer. finish third or in the first three in a race.

Based on the above, I would propose that unless someone can show the world that "all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors" with verifiable, scientific experiments, the biased word ought to be replaced with theorized. And experiments showing Drosophila melanogaster evolving into different colored Drosophilae, which are then extrapolated into theoretical changes occurring during a span of millions of years and applied universally to all species, does not count as showing any more than attempting to accurately measure the distance between two stars by extrapolating it from an inchworm's pace. I'd even settle for an experimentally verifiable case of punctuated equilibrium - a swift, dramatic development of one species into another, should something like that even exist. Although to be fair, multiple experimentally verifiable examples of naturally occurring punctuated equilibrium would have to be necessary to make such a bold, universal claim.

Perhaps it's not only the word show which is so biased. That little word all is starting to look much harder to justify. It seems the editors of this article who are too stubborn to allow this article to follow a natural, Wikipedia-style evolution have opened a serious can of worms with their biased, closed-minded approach.

Tdbostick (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Tim Bostick

@Tdostick

I would propose that unless someone can show the world that "all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors" with verifiable, scientific experiments

We can. We have. They are publicly available. Please do some research on Evolution. Jess ^talk _cs 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, every one? That was quick. One would think that would have taken ages and ages, especially since scientists have not discovered every species on this earth yet. I remain unbiased on this subject as well, and completely agree with Tdbostick. And if you don't believe my lack of prejudice, I'm both a creationist and evolutionist, so I'm pretty used to differences among beliefs. However, even with a simple reader's point of view, "show" implies that Darwin and his successors have successfully provided the public with proof. Now, this might or might not happen in the future; evolution might or might not exist, despite modern evidence or lack thereof (depending on one's beliefs); and scientists might have made incredible advancements in the way of supporting the theory of evolution, but according to the linguistics of the sentence, the first impression given off by this sentence is that, completely with research and repeated experiments, down to the last bacterium, Darwin revealed to the world the undeniable facts of this component of the theory of evolution. Now, considering the historical revelance...did this happen? Abandoning all personal beliefs, did this really truly happen? Because if it did, I think that modern science would be in a different place right now. Darwin sat and observed life forms and based on his observations formed a hypothesis, which later developed into a theory. Linguistically and historically, show means that when we read Darwin we can see that he has all the facts necessary to prove that all species derive from common ancestors, and theorize means that when we read Darwin we can see that has facts and thoughts (however strong or weak, etc) proposing, offering, that all species derive from common ancestors. Sure, he might have been right, but that doesn't change what happened. Plus, when you use the word "theorize," one who believes in evolution will read the sentence as "Darwin came up with this idea, in which I believe because of the evidence provided by him and subsequent scienctists." One who does not believe in evoliton will read the sentence as "Darwin came up with this idea, in which I do not believe." With "show," an evolutionist reads it as "Darwin came up with this idea, in which I believe because of the evidence provided by him and subsequent scienctists." One who does not believe in evolution (or is merely doubtful and looking for personal proof, and such people do exist (hi there)) will read it as "...What? Ok, it's not what I believe, but at least Wikipedia could consider everyone's beliefs and not assume things. Sure there's evidence, but according to the morning news we're still unsure, however vaguely unsure we might be." When the impressions of a sentence are as similar as possible, then an unbiased statement is reached.