nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 165:
Line 165: + + +
→Junk the article, start: You are welcome to improve it, but the atheist origins myth is not science.
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)
:Feel free to suggest a new opening, or even change it yourself, if you have something better, but I'm personally not convinced that your criticism of the reference to marsupials is valid.
: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)