User talk:Hignit

Welcome!

Hello, Hignit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems biased continued

I am starting a new heading because the old one was getting to disjointed.

To Guettard: I have a a great deal on both sides of this issue. But you will have to admit when a person comes on here and makes some very mild suggestions and then is conforonted with abusive language there is a problem with the process. From what I can see almost all the editors of this article are very anti-ID. This does not seem right. And the sources seems to be cherry-picked. Now of course you are going to say that is not true. Now I saw in the Behe article where he says he is a plagiarist. The source: a blog. One person who simply concluded that and put in a blog.

Of course we are not even allowed to talk about how the process works here are we? It just does seem right to me that an article about X should be writtend exclusively by people who are vehemently opposed to X and then to claim the article is not biase. To not let any editor who is even neutral about the subject to involve to me is wrong and biased. And it shows. I think all of you could be a little more clever in covering up your agenda here. It just hits you in the face when you read the first paragraph. Look if you cannot even let one person who is not intensely anti-ID edit then it is a lost cause. You all own this article and snuff out any dissent quickly. Have fun. Hignit (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe it is time to discuss them again. Science progresses. It is not stagnant. Of course if you want to turn this into a holy tome I guess I cannot stop you. And it seems you are wanted to hide the fact that many people feel the article needs work. It seems you want to keep control in the hands of the present editors.

Are new people allowed to join in? Are you saying new people are not allowed to criticize an article?

What are you going to do when the movie comes out. Simply restict any comments on this page?

Really new people are not even allowed to comment on the article? Why not just freeze it and the talkpages so no new ideas ever come here. That is not science and that is totalitarianism. Hignit (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's talk pages are not meant to facilitate scientific progress. This is not the place for new ideas, other than those about the presentation of information. Wikipedia's role is to report on external facts, such as the fact that the vast majority of the scientific community rejects ID. If that changes, so too will the article. Ilkali (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science progresses, but Creationist arguments do not. You have said nothing that has not already been covered previously, and that is not squarely covered by the policies linked to by the header section. Article talkpages are not soapboxes for you to complain about scientific rejection of creationism, nor wikipedia's policy of accepting the scientific community's view. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I agree with Ilkali. Hignit is not understanding what Wikipedia is and what its purpose is, and its principles are. Hignit, we are not doing science here. We are not reporters either. This is not journalism. This is not a soapbox. We are documenting what journalists and scientists and lawyers and courts and intelligent design supporters say. If what they say is mostly bad about intelligent design, that is what we say. If what they say is mostly good about intelligent design, that is what we say.[reply]

All surveys of scientists show that way over 99% of scientists in relevant fields say bad things about intelligent design, at least right now. If in the future, 50% of the scientists in relevant fields say good things about intelligent design, the article would be changed to document this. If the court case in Dover was favorable to intelligent design we would describe that. The court case in Dover was not favorable to intelligent design, and so we described that.

We are not out to pillory intelligent design. We are here to describe the situation. The situation is, of the people who are supposed to evaluate it, most think it is nonsense, including the courts and the scientists.

This is not a place to debate if intelligent design is good or not. There are some things said by people who support intelligent design that are reasonable and I agree with. However, the relevant question is not what I believe, or you believe, but what the scientists and the courts say. And it is not only important what they say, but what is found in certain kinds of sources. Not any old source, but reliable, verifiable sources according to WP standards. If we have an article in the New York Times or Science magazine that says that 60% of all scientists think intelligent design is a reasonable new scientific idea, then we would include that in Wikipedia. Not before.

Of the American public, a large fraction think that there is some value to intelligent design. And so in articles like level of support for evolution, this is described.

Do you understand?--Filll (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hignit: your approach to intelligent design seems to be the exact opposite of your approach to macroevolution. On macroevolution, you wanted the article to focus exclusively on the scientific usage of the term, even to the extent of removing all mention of how the term is used by creationists: "Why even bring that up? Do we mention the opinons of flat-earthers in geography articles? Or do we mention astrology in psychology articles? Or do we mention voodoo in psychotherapy articles? In so many of these articles so much empahsis is put on what 'creationists' think. I think the constant attention to them gives their point of view more credence." Yet, on intelligent design, you apparently want the article to give credence to the (bogus) creationist claim that ID is "the science of detecting design", when it is actually an attempt to get creationism into the classroom by rebadging it as "science" (a direct response to Edwards v. Aguillard). Why the double standard? --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]