Content deleted Content added
Markbassett (talk | contribs) →False, dishonest and misleading: tweak with wikilink add |
Hob Gadling (talk | contribs) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Old AfD multi |date=8 July 2023 |result='''keep''' |page=Specified complexity}}
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Creationism|importance=High}}
}}
{{archivebox|
{{{archive box|auto=yes}}
Line 41 ⟶ 43:
: That this article actually has a "criticism" section is probably a sign that the bulk of the article is not properly balanced. The criticisms related to an article subject should not be lumped together but integrated with the rest of the body. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
::To decide what to promote and what not to promote is lack of neutrality. This article is an attack on ID. That is not "per se" bad, only it is not neutral at all. Perhaps Wikipedia should drop the requisite of "neutrality", it would be more honest. [[Special:Contributions/186.53.245.87|186.53.245.87]] ([[User talk:186.53.245.87|talk]]) 12:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::You do not understand what "neutrality" means on Wikipedia. It does not mean we give equal weight to serious scientists and con artists. It means reflecting what reliable sources say on a subject. That is what the article does. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
: Wikipedia is adopting the HHGTTG encyclopedic editorial standard. This article should be re-edited shortly as "It's bullshit", so people don't waste time trying to find amist criticism what the idea of specified complexity is. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/187.65.198.179|187.65.198.179]] ([[User talk:187.65.198.179|talk]]) 04:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Line 385 ⟶ 389:
::::Nope, science excludes any content from or speaking to anything like that. [[Methodological naturalism]] is a fundamental tenet of modern science. So again, there cannot be a “scientific” consensus defining something as Creationism. If scientists talk religion, they are not talking “science”, they are talking outside their profession. They can say IC does not belong in their house, but they do not get to go into someone else’s house. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 22:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::Both classic creationists and ID are the same type of dishonest ignoramuses which use the same type of bad reasoning. The only difference is that ID clumsily tries to hide their agenda. It does not matter if you call that "scientific consensus" or something else. It is what reliable sources agree on, and that is what counts in Wikipedia. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 06:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::Oh, a consensus in theology and philosophy of “Creationism” is clear enough, but again the point is to be clear that is not a “scientific” consensus. The scientific communities simply and wisely did not go outside their ___domain to muck about in the fields of other experts. Their opinions on that topic would not be “reliable sources” for that as what is [[WP:RS]] always depends on context. In some contexts it’s even an ID proponent. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 15:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Implying that the ID clowns are "other experts" is pretty silly - they can be quoted only on the subject of what is their own opinion, in articles about themselves - but if you do not want to call it a "scientific" consensus, that is alright. It's a consensus nevertheless. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 15:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
| |||