Changes

== Junk the article, start ==

== Junk the article, start over ==

This article reads like something a second grader would write and needs significant work.  Starting with "Kangaroos are the largest Marsupials alive today" is simply un-encyclopedic, if for no other reason than people who want to learn about kangaroos are certainly not likely to know what it means for them to be marsupials.

This article reads like something a second grader would write and needs significant work.  Starting with "Kangaroos are the largest Marsupials alive today" is simply un-encyclopedic, if for no other reason than people who want to learn about kangaroos are certainly not likely to know what it means for them to be marsupials.

Then there is the whole section discussing origin, where scientific theory is relegated to a position less worthy of note than aboriginal-Australian myth.  It is also mostly composed of questioning of the relevance of its merit, simply by accusing scientists of not believing in a deity.  That issue belongs on a whole other page. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:15, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Then there is the whole section discussing origin, where scientific theory is relegated to a position less worthy of note than aboriginal-Australian myth.  It is also mostly composed of questioning of the relevance of its merit, simply by accusing scientists of not believing in a deity.  That issue belongs on a whole other page. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:15, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:As for the second part of your criticism, however, I flatly reject it, as you are equating the evolutionary view (i.e. the atheist origins myth) with "[[natural science|science]]".  Scientists who start from a position that one view is not worthy of being considered because it requires a Creator in Whom they don't believe, are not being scientific, but are imposing their worldview (a.k.a. [[religion]]) on the evidence in an unscientific manner.

:As for the second part of your criticism, however, I flatly reject it, as you are equating the evolutionary view (i.e. the atheist origins myth) with "[[natural science|science]]".  Scientists who start from a position that one view is not worthy of being considered because it requires a Creator in Whom they don't believe, are not being scientific, but are imposing their worldview (a.k.a. [[religion]]) on the evidence in an unscientific manner.

:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:52, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:52, 29 October 2007 (EDT)