Talk:Preformationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
A fact from Preformationism appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 27 August 2007. |
 |
[edit] Anecdotic
I move this here, I think it belongs rather to the entry on Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (see WP:TRITE):
- "Living at a time when sin was virtually synonymous with crime, he was careful to note that his semen samples came from "the excess with which nature provided me in my conjugal relations," and not "sinful contrivance."" (Magner 160)
Lapaz 19:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Out-of-Place Statement
I removed the following sentence: "Because of religious creationist bias that pervaded research at the time, preformationists held onto their theories in the face of contravening evidence." My reason is that the paragraphs preceding and following the sentence show that observations seemed to support preformationist theory. The preceding paragraph states that Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Joseph de Aromatari, Marcello Malpighi and Jan Swammerdam all made observations supporting preformation theory. Then, the last sentence in that paragraph is this statement, that, despite contravening evidence, the creationists kept preformationism alive. OK, *what* contravening evidence? None was listed in the paragraph leading up to that point. In fact, the preceding paragraph makes the point that nearly 2 centuries would pass before any theory could explain the lack of evidence for epigenist theory, when the cell theory came along. The paragraph following the sentence that I removed quotes Leeuwenhoek throwing an anvil to the epigenist theory. So, I removed that sentence because it does not fit in with any of the surrounding text. Pooua (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
