Difference between revisions of "Talk:National Center for Science Education"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::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. --[[User:Horace42|Horace42]] 19:07, 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. --[[User:Horace42|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. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 06:25, September 17, 2008
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)