Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + +
Conservapedia talk:Evolution two (view source)
Revision as of 18:28, April 24, 2007
, 18:28, April 24, 2007→Suggestions
Karajou, I am very happy that you are taking the time to do this. I have pointed out on several other pages that a lot of the science (evolutionary biology) articles do not provide information that students could use to pass exams and as reference material. The pro or anti stances ruin the usefullness of these articles and tend to waterdown the meaning of the terms. Let me know how I can help in any way.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Karajou, I am very happy that you are taking the time to do this. I have pointed out on several other pages that a lot of the science (evolutionary biology) articles do not provide information that students could use to pass exams and as reference material. The pro or anti stances ruin the usefullness of these articles and tend to waterdown the meaning of the terms. Let me know how I can help in any way.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok TimS...the help is appreciated. The style of writing must be absolutely neutral. For example, we cannot do a brief on natural selection, then follow up with a creationist stance which starts "well, I think this is wrong and here's why...". There's going to be a rebuttal of the evidence to be sure, but each instance should be written as if there is absolutely nothing else in the article; we'd have Darwin's view on N.S., or Gould's, or whatever, and within the same subheading countering it is the creation viewpoint, but written as though the above was not there at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)