Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 127:
Line 127: + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 12:07, October 1, 2007
, 12:07, October 1, 2007→Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia.: Pointing out Graham's error
Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
::It's not a pro-[[scientific method]] bias but a pro-[[naturalism]] bias. The scientific method actually makes no reference to an exclusive focus on the physical world. Psychologists use the scientific method, even when the thoughts, feelings and intentions they study are utterly invisible.
::The pretense that science consists only of the study of the physical world is a blatant fallacy. Science encompasses far more than just the [[physical science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:07, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
: Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
: Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)