Changes

You're just replacing their genius bias with your own.  Richard Dawkins has been a leader in the field of biology for over 30 years, since ''The Selfish Gene'' was published  I can't find more than a couple publications by Jonathan Wells.  You're trying to replace someone with decades of respected scholarship who happens to believe differently from you with someone with practically no academic notoriety who happens to agree with you.  I don't know why you think that fighting bias with blatant bias is going to solve anything.  I think liberal bias is bad enough, but you can't fight fire with flamethrowers. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 13:42, 8 February 2008 (EST)

You're just replacing their genius bias with your own.  Richard Dawkins has been a leader in the field of biology for over 30 years, since ''The Selfish Gene'' was published  I can't find more than a couple publications by Jonathan Wells.  You're trying to replace someone with decades of respected scholarship who happens to believe differently from you with someone with practically no academic notoriety who happens to agree with you.  I don't know why you think that fighting bias with blatant bias is going to solve anything.  I think liberal bias is bad enough, but you can't fight fire with flamethrowers. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 13:42, 8 February 2008 (EST)

:But didn't you know? [[Richard Dawkins]] is [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford| not even a real professor!]] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:39, 8 February 2008 (EST)

: First, it wasn't me that "replaced" anything, or included the phrase that is being questioned.  Second, I don't know what the qualifications of the two gentlemen are, so I'm not defending the particular example, but the principle.  Another thing that I've noticed is the tendency by anticreationists to use any criteria they can that marginalises creationists (or ID people, as in this case).  So in this case, you are ignoring qualifications and citing the number of books (or other publications?)  But although Dawkins is quite prolific in his writing, many of his books are polemics against Christianity, creationism, or etc., rather than being scientific publications.  I've seen creationists criticised for publishing books rather than in peer-reviewed journals, yet here you are citing Dawkins' ''books'' as evidence of his standing!

: Everyone has biases; as someone once said, it's not a matter of being biased, but which is the best biased to be biased with! It's not bias per se that we object to, but bias ''masquerading as objective science'' (e.g. evolution) or as neutrality (e.g. Wikipedia).

: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:52, 8 February 2008 (EST)

== New bias? ==

== New bias? ==