Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: + +
Conservapedia talk:Evolution two (view source)
Revision as of 18:33, April 24, 2007
, 18:33, April 24, 2007no edit summary
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)
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)
The first reference is to a college textbook I am using for my biology class, which also lists a basic structure that I sort of copied on the main page for the article. No, I most certainly do not agree with what is said in it (of what the professor said in my class!), but it's still a bonafide example of what is needed here for the article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)