nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 180:
Line 180: + + + + + +
→Delete last section devoted to evolutionists = atheists: Explanation of the deleted section
I have deleted the last section which began with "For example" and continues with a statistical breakup of how many biologists are praying on their knees as contrasted with how many are shaking their fist at the Almighty, as unarguably off topic. This is an article on kangaroos, not the blind bigotry of atheistic biologists. In any case, it is not clear of what the "example" is supposed to be. If necessary, and I don't think it is, there should be a link to one of the "Let's all create a New World - a new medieval world" sites. I might note in passing that I have never seen an article in Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia or scientific journal for that matter) on the origins of kangaroos, camels or mole-rats which felt it necessary to expound on the religous beliefs of those individuals who had been responsible for the research. So who are the bigots now?
I have deleted the last section which began with "For example" and continues with a statistical breakup of how many biologists are praying on their knees as contrasted with how many are shaking their fist at the Almighty, as unarguably off topic. This is an article on kangaroos, not the blind bigotry of atheistic biologists. In any case, it is not clear of what the "example" is supposed to be. If necessary, and I don't think it is, there should be a link to one of the "Let's all create a New World - a new medieval world" sites. I might note in passing that I have never seen an article in Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia or scientific journal for that matter) on the origins of kangaroos, camels or mole-rats which felt it necessary to expound on the religous beliefs of those individuals who had been responsible for the research. So who are the bigots now?
: I think the section that you deleted came about by someone adding that the vast majority of biologists believe that 'roos evolved, as a sort of not-so-subtle argument-by-majority-view, so someone else added correctly that this "majority view" was a worldview-based view.
: The "for example" was an indication of the worldviews, to support the claim that their views on 'roo origins was worldview-based. I agree that this thought didn't flow terribly obviously.
: You are only partly correct that Wikipedia (etc.) don't expound on the religious views of the scientists with particular views, but this is because they don't recognise that one's views of origins is based on one's religious views. They work under the false premise that evolution is objective science rather than worldview-based assumptions. You are partly ''incorrect'' because if someone tries to put a creationist view into a Wikipedia article, you will very quickly have the religious basis of the creationist view expounded, as justification for not putting that view in at all.
: As we are not Wikipedia, and do not have this anti-Christian/anti-Creationist bias, we are happy to (a) present both views, and (b) explain why different people have different views.
:Having said all that, I'm generally happy to avoid arguments in articles about which view is best, i.e. simply keep it neutral and, where origins is relevant at all, mention both views briefly.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:46, 30 November 2007 (EST)