User talk:DavidPesta
How was this talk page edit going to help improve the article? Please think about this: If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at talk.origins, True.Origins Archive or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time. "don't expect the most popular side to admit that there is a controversy in science" <-- It is always important for people to explore alternatives to conventional science. If you wish to contribute along those lines, I suggest that you start at pages Imsuch as List of works on intelligent design. The Evolution article is dominated by the strong consensus among working biologists according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." In this case, "tiny minority" is defined by the number of scientific articles published in biology journals. If you are unhappy about the content of Evolution and if you hold alternative views, I encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia "articles devoted to those views". Please do not disrupt the editing of Evolution. --JWSchmidt 14:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Your recent contribs to the ID talk page
[edit]Hi, I decided to answer your last posts to the ID talk page on your user talk page to prevent a heated discussion.
I think that there are some things that are lacking in your argumentation:
Your basic assumption that “the” scientific approach has no chance of ever explaining some phenomenons is basically the god of the gaps concept, which has been proven to be merely a lack of imagination or knowledge again and again see this very good essay by Neil de Grasse Tyson for a more sophisticated argumentation).
I know I’m running through a minefield here, but the 13% figure might have something ro do with the fact that education levels of large parts of the population (not only in the US) are pretty low and people are simply using an argument from ignorance.
The latter part of your last contrib was pure OR unless you can back it up with reliable sources. Finally again, the need for paradigm shifts is a discussion suited for a philosophy forum, not WP. Malc82 22:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
November 2017
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Intelligent design are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. McSly (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)