A small group of Wikipedia admins with a grudge against ID have been running amok with no oversight performing and/or allowing hatchet jobs on ID and its leaders. It’s long past time to expose what they’ve been doing. Wikipedia is far too popular and reliable source of information, especially for school children, to let this travesty of justice continue. (emphasis mine)
Another symptom of IDioty? Considering Wikipedia as a reliable source of information?. Popular and democratic maybe, and that’s the problem with DaveScot, he doesn’t support « collective voice » in a space where moderation isn’t equal to IDiots dictatorship.
Once more, whining Dave, once more low depth.
Now, it’s unclear to me why the ID guys, who are mostly hard math and science types, should even want to hang out with these children of a lesser god. But my friend insisted on hearing the view from O’Leary’s Point, so here goes. (emphasis mine)
Hey, that’s news, ID guys as hard math and science types! Denyse is neither, but if she believe that IDiots are science types then we have a starting point to explain why she is pro-ID. Denyse, there is evidence against this particular belief of yours.
Beyond that, all I really want to say nowadays is that the universe is either top down or bottom up. That is, either mind comes first and creates matter or matter comes first and creates mind. The evidence for bottom up is actually quite poor but Darwinism (from goo to zoo to you in a zillion easy steps) is the bottom-up creation story. Thus, getting Darwinism inserted in the school system, funded by the tax money of those who oppose it, is an enormous triumph for the materialist – especially when the genuine evidence base is so slender.(emphasis mine)
The evidence for bottom up isn’t poor, but let’s consider that this is the case for a moment. One have to compare with the alternatives, that is the top down, for which there is no evidence at all. That make bottom up infinitely more supported then top down, thus the better to teach to freshman.
It is a small step between calling any kind of creationist education “cultural deprivation” and “cultural impoverishment” to calling it “child abuse” as Richard Dawkins maintains.
OK then, let’s make a small step: creationist education is cultural deprivation and impoverishment and should be considered as child abuse, by law, and punished.
And let’s take another small step: if at philosophy classes the controversy is presented as an alternative to materialism why not present materialism as a controversy in religious gatherings? That should be.