Difference between revisions of "Talk:Icons of Evolution"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: Ed, why did you revert my edits? It should be clear in the article that the book in question is controversial and generally ignored as being bad science in the scientific community. I ca...) |
(Is advertising OK?) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Ed, why did you revert my edits? It should be clear in the article that the book in question is controversial and generally ignored as being bad science in the scientific community. I can understand that you might not share the same point of view, but as it is now the article is factually incorrect. [[User:Arctic Nation|Arctic Nation]] 11:52, 13 April 2007 (EDT) | Ed, why did you revert my edits? It should be clear in the article that the book in question is controversial and generally ignored as being bad science in the scientific community. I can understand that you might not share the same point of view, but as it is now the article is factually incorrect. [[User:Arctic Nation|Arctic Nation]] 11:52, 13 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :What do you mean by "the [[science community]]"? Are you referring to [[biologist]]s in general? [[Evolutionist]]s? [[Evolution educator]]s? | ||
| + | |||
| + | :How can something be "ignored as bad science"? Did you mean "condemned" as "[[pseudoscience]]" or "[[junk science]]"? | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Your question adopts the pose of a mere procedural objection, but I think you are making substantive objections. If you think the book has errors, please point them out. Better yet, post references to experts who have objections. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::A summary of the ''certain myths'' and how they illustrate evolutionary theory to be ''incorrect'' would go a long way to help make this an enyclopedic article and not an advertisement for a book. | ||
| + | ::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:45, April 16, 2007
Ed, why did you revert my edits? It should be clear in the article that the book in question is controversial and generally ignored as being bad science in the scientific community. I can understand that you might not share the same point of view, but as it is now the article is factually incorrect. Arctic Nation 11:52, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
- What do you mean by "the science community"? Are you referring to biologists in general? Evolutionists? Evolution educators?
- How can something be "ignored as bad science"? Did you mean "condemned" as "pseudoscience" or "junk science"?
- Your question adopts the pose of a mere procedural objection, but I think you are making substantive objections. If you think the book has errors, please point them out. Better yet, post references to experts who have objections. --Ed Poor 08:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
- A summary of the certain myths and how they illustrate evolutionary theory to be incorrect would go a long way to help make this an enyclopedic article and not an advertisement for a book.
- WhatIsG0ing0n 09:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)