Talk:National Center for Science Education

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Do they mean, teaching about evolution? (like, it's a theory or conjecture which happens to be very popular) Or, teaching that the theory of evolution is a fact? (We have proof and are ready to show it) --Ed Poor 16:23, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Unsourced and unencyclopedic

Learn Together, the word "erroneously" is editorial comment and would not appear in a real encyclopedia in such a context. You do this site no favours by reinserting it into the article. --Horace42 20:17, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

The word "erroneously" helps to point out to our readers that this information is factually inaccurate - and that is a goal of our site. Learn together 13:55, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
The word "erroneously" is clearly editorial in nature and has no place in an encyclopedia in this context. 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". To go on and draw the conclusion that the contention is erroneous is not something that a serious conscientious editor should do. Further, there is no citation in relation to the contention being made in the first place and no citation to show that the allegation (if it was made) is incorrect. The former may well be possible. The latter would require selective citing (i.e. choosing a creationist site or book as a source over mainstream sources). You talk about the need "to point out to our readers that this information is factually inaccurate". Is it? How do you know? Can you provide a citation? Like in an encyclopedia. I suggest that my edit be reinstated. --Horace42 19:07, 16 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. 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.
Philip J. Rayment 02:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
If I were to state that the letters 'M' and 'N' were the same, it is not enough to say that I contend it. It is proper to point out that I am wrong. Our readers come here for truth which oftentimes may be difficult to find on other sites. Similar to a Presidential election where the goal is to win, the ability to portray your opposition as how you wish them to be viewed through unflattering comparisons is an important strategy. Creationism is locked out of the classroom. Unless Intelligent Design is linked to Creationism it would be difficult to justify its suppression, especially since 70% of the United States population is curious and wants it to be taught. Learn together 11:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
That's really not a good example, as everyone knows that M and N are not the same. Therefore it definitely would be enough to say that you contend it. Even if not everyone did know it, I still think that it is enough to say that you contend it. And I say this despite totally agreeing with your last two sentences. I also agree that Conservapedia should say that they are not the same, but ID and creationism articles are sufficient for that. My point is that it does not need to be said in this article. Philip J. Rayment 06:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)