User:Infocat

It always strikes me as somewhat odd when I view certain wikipedia articles pertaining to creationism, evolutionism, etc. Many of the articles become simply a "point, counter-point" type of thing, where the two biased people are fighting to get their point of view in. For example, something may end up looking like this:

"Creationism is considered a pseudo-science by many in the scientific community, however, creationists claim that this is so because evolutionists won't let a foot in the door that involves something contrary to their philisophical naturalism, however, evolutionists claim that naturalism is how science operates, however, creationists say naturalism only works with things in the present and not issues like origins of life and things that go far back billions of years, however, evolutionists say that anything supernatural isn't science, so it must not have anything to do with the scientific method, however, creationists say that information which is coded into our DNA must have come from an intelligent source, and whether science can deal with such naturalistically or not is irrelevant to the fact that naturalistically information and complexity cannot arise without intelligence, which in this case would be intelligence of a higher source than humans, i.e., God."

My point is that if people want to debate, go to your favorite message board; there's tons of them. Articles are suppose to be an objective look at the subject, and not simply a bunch of people who have agendas trying to impose their deep bias into the article. I know that it is tough to be completely fair and objective, but please put at least a little more effort into this. Articles are descriptions of the subject, not a rebuttal to what the subject is about!

Just...., keep it in mind.