User talk:ChrisDuben

Please read the NPOV guidelines. Please understand that your "research" is highly amusing. I have a biology degree. Take your changes to the talk page and reach concensus there. If you don't, I will report you on vandalism in progress. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

btw,

{welcome}

Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have read the NPOV guidelines. That's why I have an argument. If this site was not supposed to be NPOV, I would just assume that the article is from an anti-creationist perspective. I'm not trying to impose a creationist bias on the site, just a simple NPOV.

Now please explain to me how I am being a vandal.

C. Duben 20:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, let's take this slowly. I know you don't want to be a vandal, and I encourage you to be bold in editing pages.

Intelligent design is controversial. What should happen in the whole article is that the IDers views are explained, followed by an explanation of the opposition and their position. The lead section should reflect the article as a whole (which is a bit of a mess), shortly. Opposition to ID is important because it comes from the scientific community.

At least, the evolutionist community. Think: even if the majority of ancient scientists at one time believed in astrology, that doesn't mean that they're right. Popular belief is a fallacious argument.

Perhaps we should try to organise the article somehow. Perhaps you should add the details of your research, to the page, using appropriate language such as "IDers maintain", "IDers assert", etc.

Good concept maybe, but I'm not suggesting that my research be added to the article. My whole point was that evolution is a controversial issue, and the article should take more of a NPOV perspective.

If you're following Kent Hovind, (I saw dr dino in the edit history somewhere) he's into Young Earth creationism rather than ID which is more the Discovery Institute. ID eventually falls down on metaphysics, and the ID movement being economical with the truth and arguing politically or legally, not scientifically. Hoving falls because he's a crank.

Actually, I mentioned Hovind just to prove that there is such a thing as creation science! (Google search: creation) But no, I didn't put any of his teachings into the article, and you still haven't showed me how I am being a vandal. I haven't been defacing any pages; in fact, I haven't even been making major changes.

Hovind has found plenty of evidence to his advantage, but I won't go into that right now, as we're discussing NPOV.

Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)