nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + + + +
Talk:National Center for Science Education (view source)
Revision as of 06:32, September 17, 2008
, 06:32, September 17, 2008→Unsourced and unencyclopedic: Agree with both
:::We don't have to go off on long pontifications here. Creationism believes God made everything. The form that is usually fought is the Biblical 6-Day account. Intelligent Design says that we appear to have been designed -- period. The source of that design is beyond the scope of the empirical scientific data that reaches that conclusion. May I suggest, since you appear to have a great deal of time, that you find a site that can be used as a reference. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
:::We don't have to go off on long pontifications here. Creationism believes God made everything. The form that is usually fought is the Biblical 6-Day account. Intelligent Design says that we appear to have been designed -- period. The source of that design is beyond the scope of the empirical scientific data that reaches that conclusion. May I suggest, since you appear to have a great deal of time, that you find a site that can be used as a reference. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
::: Wiki encyclopaedias tend to differ from "real" encyclopaedias in a number of ways. For example, Wikipedia insists on referencing almost every claim and bans original research. "Real" encyclopaedias don't do either. Also, all encyclopaedias present some viewpoints as fact (e.g. evolution), so in one sense Conservapedia is just being more up front than most in this regard. Further, Conservapedia is prepared to state what it believes to be the truth even though others disagree (see my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]).
::: Having said all that, I tend to agree that there is no need in this case to include the word "erroneously". As Horace42 says, 'The article already puts the reader on notice that there might some question as to whether the connection alleged is correct by use of the words "which it contends"'. In this case, I'm inclined to think that is sufficient.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)