Creationists on Wikipedia
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2011, 02:58 PM
Creationists on Wikipedia
I recently became interested to learn how many times the Evolution article on Wikipedia had been vandalized. You can usually get a good sense of this by going through the archive of an article's talk page. I actually didn't get that far. I was caught up in reading the "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) section of the talk page, which explains why the Wikipedia community accepts it as fact, and it also answers common questions posed by anti-evolutionists. Below that lists "past discussions" consisting of complaints about the evolution page not being balanced out with creationist material. I clicked on one of these discussions entitled "Heavy evolutionist bias" to read the following opening sentence: "Please, let's do a better job of representing NPOV and consensus, isn't that what Wikipedia's always been about?--F.O.E. 06:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)"

Normally, I would agree with the person. I may think the story of Genesis is a fairytale, but Wikipedia dictates that all articles must be balanced with opposing views. However, it quickly became apparent from the following comments that the person was not the impartial editor they made themselves out to be. Others quickly called user “F.O.E." out on his hypocrisy by bringing attention to the "user boxes" on his user page. (For those who have never edited Wikipedia, these boxes are displayed to show a user's hobbies, theological and political views, the types of languages they speak, and their general likes and dislikes.) Check them out:

[Image: christianhipocrisy.png]

Notice the stabs that they take at abortion, evolution, and homosexuality. Apparently all gays are “perverted unnatural deviants.” What a self-righteous bigot! And I had to laugh at the whole “Evilution” thing. The only people I’ve heard use that phrase were “Literalists” who believe Darwin was influenced by Satan. If that is true, HAIL SATAN!

Another creationist who took part in the same discussion was a user named “Scorpionman.” They didn’t actually contribute anything other than straw man arguments and personal attacks on other editors. I went by their user page to see a brief description of them. The bit about religion stated: “Those of you who follow other religions and don't agree with Christianity, that's fine, but you should really think it over.” Like his religion is the TRUE religion, please! Another creationist left the following award on his user page:

[Image: christianhipocrisy2.png]

I went to the awarder’s talk page and noticed that they like to get into arguments with biology grad students over the falsehood of evolution. I seriously have to laugh at people like this who have no knowledge on a particular subject, but still feel the need to argue with highly qualified individuals. You won't ever see me arguing over the nuances of Japanese with a Japanese expert, so why do they even try?

When I have the time, I’ll come back with more funny pictures. I seriously think this sort of stuff needs to be archived for future generations to look at. They will look at it and ask: “Were they really that stupid back then?”
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ghostexorcist's post
02-06-2011, 08:10 PM
RE: Creationists on Wikipedia
I have to ask , why does that user oppose evolution ? As far as I know Catholics accept the theory.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2011, 09:13 PM
RE: Creationists on Wikipedia
(02-06-2011 08:10 PM)gaglamesh731 Wrote:  I have to ask , why does that user oppose evolution ? As far as I know Catholics accept the theory.

But not all don't. A survey once had only about 30% oppose evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_su..._evolution

[Image: buddhasig.png]
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” ~ Gautama Buddha
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2011, 03:32 AM
RE: Creationists on Wikipedia
Read the "arguments". They're the same stupid ramblings we have to debunk each and every time.

These discussions show the importance of correct information. Imagine a world lead by the religious right; how would facts and real information be treated when they contradicted with the bible? Would the general public still have access to it?

If the information gets into the hands of religious nuts (worse than fox news), we're back in the dark ages.

"Infinitus est numerus stultorum." (The number of fools is infinite)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2011, 11:37 AM
RE: Creationists on Wikipedia
(02-06-2011 09:13 PM)The Doctor Wrote:  
(02-06-2011 08:10 PM)gaglamesh731 Wrote:  I have to ask , why does that user oppose evolution ? As far as I know Catholics accept the theory.

But not all don't. A survey once had only about 30% oppose evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_su..._evolution

Those must be Catholics surrounded by other Christian denominations and being influenced by some of their ideas. Probably happens a lot in the US.

The God excuse: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument. "God did it." Anything we can't describe must have come from God. - George Carlin

Whenever I'm asked "What if you're wrong?", I always show the asker this video: http://youtu.be/iClejS8vWjo Screw Pascal's wager.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2011, 12:43 PM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2011 12:54 PM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: Creationists on Wikipedia
I've noticed a trend on the archived discussions from the "Frequently Asked Questions"(FAQ) section. All of the discussions about the Evolution article not being neutral occurred in 2006, around the time Dawkins' book The God Delusion came out. There are several editor's that call up the "mutation cannot increase the information in the genome" crap. Take this gem for example: "Obviously, I personally have not seen any evidence that any natural process can increase information in the genome (neither has Richard Dawkins, for that matter)." (This of course refers to Dawkins' failure to answer a similar question because he was pissed to learn that he had been duped into giving an interview to some undercover creationists.) The user who stated this, Standonbible, also repeats this on their user page:

Quote:There are two parts of evolutionary theory (both that I disagree with); first that gene duplication and polyploidy (mutations) can increase the usable information in the genome, causing new traits to appear in organisms, and second that this "process" was responsible for the vast diversity of life on earth. The second part is highly questionable even if the first is true; evolution (as accepted by the majority of scientists) is a very random process that only takes place under certain circumstances (environmental stress, reproduction rates, and the like). Since significant evolutionary progress taking place under any given circumstances is not guaranteed, it is quite speculative to state affirmatively that all the diversity of life results from evolution in the past.

Since no random gene duplication or polyploidy has been seen to actually increase the usable information in the genome or cause new traits to appear, the first part is highly speculative as well.

Another thing I think is funny is that several of the creationists created "sockpuppet" accounts just so they would have several imaginary friends to back them up in discussions. For instance, the aforementioned user Scorpianman created a sock known as "Bugeyedmonster." Their talk page shows the sock was blocked from editing because they had the exact same I.P. address as Scorpianman, had a similar user name, and had not made any edits previous to butting into discussions about Evolution. Another user named "Kdbuffalo" was blocked for having multiple sock puppets. This admin page describes how they made multiple unconstructive edits to several evolution-related articles. They also didn't consider the fact that 95% of scientists accepted evolution to be an "overwhelming majority." That is a clear cut case of denial.

How sad is it that these people not only argue against a subject with no prior knowledge, but create sockpuppet accounts to back up their claims? And creationists have the audacity to claim that atheists are immoral! I believe these bastards are breaking commandment #9: "Thou shall not bear false witness." ALL ABOARD THE HYPOCRITE TRAIN!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ghostexorcist's post
24-08-2013, 09:12 PM
RE: Creationists on Wikipedia
That's the problem with having a website that ANYONE can edit. Someone should make a new Wikipedia where only people with a least one neuron in their heads can contribute.

[Image: ezgif_save_1.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: