144
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 127:
Line 127: + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 16:43, September 25, 2007
, 16:43, September 25, 2007→Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia.
:::Then suppose you tell us: what exactly ''is'' science? And where is it written that science ''ipso facto'' excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them ''a priori'' as untenable?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Then suppose you tell us: what exactly ''is'' science? And where is it written that science ''ipso facto'' excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them ''a priori'' as untenable?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)