Talk:Neo-creationism: Difference between revisions
m Chron order |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Untitled rant== |
==Untitled rant== |
||
Does anybody really think this is a decent article? I'm certainly no friend of creationism in any of its forms, but this article has obvious POV problems. It basically starts with the assumption that "intelligent design" advocates are trying to deceive people about their true motives. That might be true, but it's not "encyclopedic" to assume as much from the get-go, which is what this article does. If <i>Skeptical Inquirer</i> published a glossary, this is what I think their entry on intelligent design would read like, which means this article does not meet POV standards. |
Does anybody really think this is a decent article? I'm certainly no friend of creationism in any of its forms, but this article has obvious POV problems. It basically starts with the assumption that "intelligent design" advocates are trying to deceive people about their true motives. That might be true, but it's not "encyclopedic" to assume as much from the get-go, which is what this article does. If <i>Skeptical Inquirer</i> published a glossary, this is what I think their entry on intelligent design would read like, which means this article does not meet POV standards. |
||
::I think TalkOrigins has the Wedge Strategy document somewhere which strongly implies deception. I also changed changed "scientific creationism" to "creation science" where appropriate-both are misnomers as neither uses any scientific method, but creation science is the more accepted term. [[Special:Contributions/67.184.132.39|67.184.132.39]] ([[User talk:67.184.132.39|talk]]) 22:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
A quality article, in my view, should describe the origins of the term "neo-creationism", explain why it is distinct from traditional creationism (if indeed it is), lay out the views of its proponents, and then (and ONLY then) get around to the point that skeptics consider the whole thing an evangelical Christian front movement. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.92.248.171|69.92.248.171]] ([[User talk:69.92.248.171|talk]]) 09:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
A quality article, in my view, should describe the origins of the term "neo-creationism", explain why it is distinct from traditional creationism (if indeed it is), lay out the views of its proponents, and then (and ONLY then) get around to the point that skeptics consider the whole thing an evangelical Christian front movement. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.92.248.171|69.92.248.171]] ([[User talk:69.92.248.171|talk]]) 09:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Revision as of 22:29, 28 December 2007
 | Creationism Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Untitled rant
Does anybody really think this is a decent article? I'm certainly no friend of creationism in any of its forms, but this article has obvious POV problems. It basically starts with the assumption that "intelligent design" advocates are trying to deceive people about their true motives. That might be true, but it's not "encyclopedic" to assume as much from the get-go, which is what this article does. If Skeptical Inquirer published a glossary, this is what I think their entry on intelligent design would read like, which means this article does not meet POV standards.
- I think TalkOrigins has the Wedge Strategy document somewhere which strongly implies deception. I also changed changed "scientific creationism" to "creation science" where appropriate-both are misnomers as neither uses any scientific method, but creation science is the more accepted term. 67.184.132.39 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
A quality article, in my view, should describe the origins of the term "neo-creationism", explain why it is distinct from traditional creationism (if indeed it is), lay out the views of its proponents, and then (and ONLY then) get around to the point that skeptics consider the whole thing an evangelical Christian front movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.248.171 (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Problems
This article is slowly turning into a piece of crud. We are not allowed to call biblical literalism biblical literalism? We have to call it plain meaning? And we have to assume there are two types of science, naturalistic science and nonnaturalistic science? This is complete nonsense. There is NO SUCH thing as nonnaturalistic science. I challenge anyone to show me a reliable source, say in Science magazine, or Scientific American, or National Academy of Sciences, or Royal Society Journal, or Nature magazine, or something equivalent that such a thing as nonnaturalistic science exists. This is outrageous. We are an encyclopedia, not a religious recruiting tract.--Filll (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- The naturalistic/nonnaturalistic cruft is a recent addition & I've gotten rid of it. What's this about "not allowed to call biblical literalism biblical literalism"? I'd be surprised if there's a consensus for this 'policy', so it would probably be safe to revert it. HrafnTalkStalk 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It was maybe the last few edits. I was watching it devolve and a bit unsure if I should revert or not.--Filll (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Creationist CPOV, Intelligent Design IDPOV, Wedge Strategy WSPOV
I am not sure what the writer below is trying to get at? I am seen enough creationwikipedia on creationism to scare the bejesus out of me. Perhaps this is a form of Wedge Strategy arising from the Intelligent Design political-religious movement, their monograph is available from Discovery Institute. the commentary below appears calculated to mislead the topic.
If people want creationist bias, Conservapedia.com and Creationwiki.org is their next stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy Editorial please check article for vandalism asap.