User talk:AlasdairJC

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:


 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. About, Help desk, and Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

12:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kent Hovind
I don't think it is useful/correct to imply that Hovind is at all unique in assuming that the theory of evolution has theological implications. This has been a constant theme in interpretting evolution since the time of Darwin. It makes no difference if the literal theory says nothing about theology for a scientific theory to have theological implications -- Darwin himself knew it did. Hovind is a wacko but he's hardly unique -- even among supporters of evolution -- in thinking this. There are plenty of notable "evolutionists" who share this opinion as well (i.e. Dawkins). I don't mind pointing out in the article that many people don't agree with Hovind's interpretation but I'm not comfortable in making it look like his way is de-facto "wrong" -- it's an interpretation, it's potentially valid, and it's not even unique to him. So I have changed it to imply this a little better. You may want to look at the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy: NPOV. By the way, I think Hovind is a wacko, but not because of this particular interpretation of his (which is quite common, even among many scientists). --Fastfission 21:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)