User talk:Nick Maync

I am referring to the use of the word "pseudoscience" in the first line of the Wikipedia entry on "Michael Behe" and his excellent scientific work regarding Neo-Darwinian evolution by mutation and natural selection. "Pseudoscience" has a strong pejorative meaning and its use disrespects Behe and his work. I am amazed Wikipedia helps defend the scientific status quo at all costs. This has become obvious to me by now. Of course, no scientific progress will be made this way. But having checked out the issues surrounding intelligent design, and having familiarized myself with the very sober and well-argued points made by a number of outstanding scientists and mathematicians, I do feel Darwin is on the decline. His tales relate to his time and what could be imagined at his time; they are not universal in any sense. He comes nowhere near Galileo, Kepler and Newton or Einstein in scientific observation and the presentation of evidence. All of these gentlemen had a view extending beyond naturalism and none of them found it at odds with their great work. I therefore feel somewhat cheated by the biased standpoints taken in Wikipedia by relentlessly supporting hard-core naturalist takes on much of the work of current, outstanding academics that have built (both tentatively and solidly) on the increased scientific output of cosmology, genetics and bio-chemistry now available. I would like them to be heard in customary scientific circles. Wikipedia's antagonism does not help. I can't say I support Wikipedia any longer. Editing it is a headache and I'll pass. Some retirees may find it worth doing. Henceforth, I shall try and get my information regarding cutting edge science from more open sources. I will warn potential readers of Wikipedia as to its limits and really, worth. Thank you.