Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Why is WikiPedia so slow?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Josh wrote:

> You are a secular person and you want to promote the secular doctrine 
> that the Earth and all animals on it, including people, were created by 
> random chance.  Am I mistaken?

Of course you are mistaken.  You should get a book and read it.  Here's 
one:

Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393316823/

It deals with the "randomness" problem that you don't seem to understand. 
I think all of Dawkins' books are good, but I can definitely recommend 
"The Blind Watchmaker" because I actually read that one, albeit about 17 
years ago:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393315703/


> You want to use Wikipedia to promote your beliefs, even if that means 
> intentionally distorting the truth.  Some in the Wikipedia community 
> don't want you to do this.  They see you as a biased secular ideologue 
> bent on distorting the facts to promote a self serving 
> pseudo-scientific, not truly scientific, belief system.

Those people are obviously crazy.


> I don't necessarily want anyone to "back me up." My edits were purely 
> factual from any perspective and if you can't concede that some 
> legitimate scientists believe in theories other than evolution (not 
> necessarily creationism) then you may need to examine your own 
> objectivity.

Maybe you should name one such person.  I don't think Michael Behe, the 
guy most people would name first, doesn't believe in evolution, he just 
believes that it is possible that there was some divine intervention in 
addition to the evolutionary process.  Am I wrong?  He's a religious 
ideologue too.


> By the way, some legitimate scientists do believe other theories. You 
> don't see that because your criteria for "legitimate" includes "agrees 
> with me."

Who are you talking about?  And why are their names being held in secret?


> I have studied evolution, and I'm not convinced. Too frequently some new 
> discovery alters the theory in a very substantial way yet each time 
> scientists claim "we have it right this time."

Nothing has ever happened to alter Darwin's theory in a substantial way. 
It's pretty much now what it was in 1859.  Every discovery we've made in 
molecular biology has served to support Darwin.  You're just making things 
up.


> As far as your comment with regard to adding a link to express my views 
> - why? There are other pages on the wiki that cover the other theories 
> adequately and there are many other resources available that do an 
> excellent job of it as well. My views don't belong on a page about 
> evolution - but neither does a blatant lie that indicates that no other 
> theories exist. It is dishonest and intentional deception to claim that 
> evolution is the only theory for the creation of life, even if you 
> happen to believe its the correct theory.

I think some Indian tribes believed that the world came out of a turtle's 
butt.  That's another leading contender, just as believable as your ideas. 
I see those creation theories as tied for a distant second after Darwin's 
theory.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion