953
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: + +
→It does not concern the scientific theory
Neither does the article linked to. And I continue to object strongly to this article. This is merely an attempt to strengthen the POV that evolution is both the foundation and the cause of a belief system. An attempt to make evolution a religion... which, of course, leads to a whole bunch of constitutional questions. I also find it amusing that the majority of the "controversy" section is the creationist response and that the pro-science sites at the bottom of the page all have their "Creationwiki" responses while the anti-science sites lack scientific responses. This article is a sham, top to bottom, and is only fit for deletion. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Neither does the article linked to. And I continue to object strongly to this article. This is merely an attempt to strengthen the POV that evolution is both the foundation and the cause of a belief system. An attempt to make evolution a religion... which, of course, leads to a whole bunch of constitutional questions. I also find it amusing that the majority of the "controversy" section is the creationist response and that the pro-science sites at the bottom of the page all have their "Creationwiki" responses while the anti-science sites lack scientific responses. This article is a sham, top to bottom, and is only fit for deletion. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Absolutely correct. I had the same thought about the creationwiki responses. It would be different if it was someone other than creationists trying to claim that evolution is a religion, but it isn't.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)