Let's get this out of the way first: I'm a undergraduate in my fourth year of university studying Medical Genetics and Evolutionary Biology. Having said this, most of my edits are in the topics related to these two fields. Furthermore, I'm deeply concerned with the public's (lack of) understanding of science, so a lot of my time is spend in discussion forums justifying claims made in scientific topics. I am always open to discussions, as this in depth discussion about evolution shows. However, if a person criticizes science through arguments from personal incredulity, a logical fallacy, I will ignore them. Scientists are getting paid to gain knowledge about this universe of ours, not to spoon-feed a populace that is too lazy to pick up an introductory textbook in science. Few things are easier than criticizing something one does not understand.
The above paragraph applies from 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday when I'm getting paid to do science. Once I take off my labcoat (on which, I am quite sure, new life has developed many a time) I'm just another nerd.
"Burn the Earth and boil the Sea, you can't take the Sky from me"Firefly
Editors were utterly and completely terrified to edit the article as they feared any change would give too much credit to this idea; this irrational fear got in the way of any improvement of the article. Editors were vetoing any changes based on two year old archives.
See, I'm not a total jackass
The E=MC² Barnstar
For consistently good edits and talk page explanations as well as resisting the forces of pseudoscience in the Evolution-related articles. Nowimnthing 17:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)