The bottom line:
Florida Citizens for Science recommends that no changes be made to the proposed state science standards. But if changes are directed anyway, they need to be fully justified and done only under the direct guidance of the expert framers and writers who created this document. We urge the Board of Education to do the principled thing.
News Release:
It’s commendable that the Florida Board of Education and the Department of Education have set a goal of implementing world-class science education standards in our state’s public schools. However, it’s disconcerting that apparent political pressure might weaken the proposed standards that will go before the Board Tuesday morning. The end result could be a set of standards that come up short of the world-class goal.
It’s been proposed by the Department of Education that the phrases “scientific theory of” and “law of” be inserted throughout the document, prompted by public and political complaints concerning evolution’s prominent place in the life sciences sections of the standards. This last minute edit of the standards serves no secular, educational purpose and only makes the standards awkward and confusing.
“The edits don’t help students understand science or help teachers teach it,” said Joe Wolf, president of Florida Citizens for Science and Winter Haven resident.
On the other hand, the Department of Education should be praised for keeping in mind the real inspiration for wanting the best standards possible. They want to provide Florida teachers and students with a tool that can be valuable in classrooms across the state.
It needs to be noted, though, that many framers and writers have come forward in the past couple of days in opposition to the proposed last minute edits. They are experts in their fields and have volunteered hundreds of hours creating the standards. Not only are they experts themselves, but they also consulted yet more experts from across the country and reviewed other exceptional science standards from around the world.
“The Board of Education charged this expert panel to do the work and we did it,” said Debra Walker, a science standards framer from Key Largo. “To edit it … makes no sense, diminishes our work, and, more importantly, sets a dangerous precedent belittling the value of scientific knowledge in Florida for this generation and the next.”
If any changes are to be made, let the Department of Education and Board of Education explain sound educational reasons, and then let the writers make changes if needed.
“Before any late edits are made, the motivations behind the changes need to be examined fully in the public view,” Wolf said. “It’s important to understand that science is not a process subject to popular vote. Why are the changes being suggested?”
The proposed changes confuse the difference between fact and theory. As an example: Gravity is both a fact and a theory. Gravity happens no matter how it is explained. It is the same with evolution. Evolution is theory in that it has tremendous explanatory power for understanding living systems. But it is also a fact: it happened in the past and is happening now. Thus, adding “scientific theory of” in front of evolution everywhere it appears in the science standards is an uninformed idea that diminishes the value of the standards.
# # #
The Florida school board’s effort at appeasement doesn’t look promising according to this article:
Brandon and Joe,
Good work standing firm in the face of these proposed last-minute additions, which are as unconstitutional as the biology textbook stickers removed after the Selman v. Cobb County School District decision in 2005 (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/globe.html).
Mr. Sullivan argues that “we firmly believe there is credible evidence supporting a Creator-initiated origin of life.” This is a theological argument, not a scientific one. Science only deals with the natural world and natural processes, not spiritual concepts; thus, logically and constitutionally, a science curriculum cannot comment on God, or espouse an anti-religious “materialism.” Indeed, many people, including such distinguished evolution proponents as Prof. Ken Miller (see the link), accept both a Creator and the scientific method, embracing both faith and reason.
Your refusal to agree to even this very modest concession — calling evolution a “scientific theory” — shows where you are coming from.
–“The Board of Education charged this expert panel to do the work and we did it,†said Debra Walker, a science standards framer from Key Largo. “To edit it … makes no sense, diminishes our work, and, more importantly, sets a dangerous precedent belittling the value of scientific knowledge in Florida for this generation and the next.†—
So why even have a state Board of Education if it is just going to be a rubber stamp?
And these so-called “experts” made a big boo-boo, saying that “organisms are classified based on their evolutionary history.” That is true only in cladistic taxonomy, and Linnaean taxonomy is still popular and will continue to be popular if for no other reason than the preservation of continuity in biology.
James F said,
–“Good work standing firm in the face of these proposed last-minute additions, which are as unconstitutional as the biology textbook stickers removed after the Selman v. Cobb County School District”–
Selman v. Cobb County is no longer on the books — the appeals court vacated and remanded the decision because of missing evidence and the Cobb County school board then settled out of court.
Larry does not live or vote in Florida. DNFTT
Why is Larry concerned with Florida? Are there some ex Nazis here who he wants to defend?
??????????
I would be okay with the “scientific theory” addition, if every scientific theory in the books has this label. However, to only single out evolution is nothing more than pandering to the creationists, who will use this to say “Hey, it’s only a theory after all.” Then again, given the amount of ink that this would waste, it would be cheaper to simply keep the standards as they are.
As for the Larry troll / shill / whatever… He should be evidence as to why it is extremely important for us to get these new standards in the books. His position is that of ignorance, and outright hostility towards knowledge and history, as he has proven on several of the posts here. This is the sort of mentality that we can expect to infect the minds of future adults if we don’t teach our children rational and critical thinking.
Hate to break it to you, Larry, but modern Linnean taxonomy is a form of cladistic taxonomy. That is why the Linnaen classification of many species have changed as better understanding of the evolutionary relationships have developed.
Larry, your ignorance is not evidence.
For anyone not familiar with Larry’s meddling, he gained some notoriety for his efforts to wipe out references to intelligent design, creationism, and nepotism from Cheri Yecke’s wikipedia article (sections of which I personally contributed to and had to restore due to his moronic vandalism) back when she was running for Florida’s education commissioner. (And we all know how that turned out, lol) Looks like he’s itchin’ for a round two.
Seriously? Whoa.
Karl driveled,
–“For anyone not familiar with Larry’s meddling, he gained some notoriety for his efforts to wipe out references to intelligent design, creationism, and nepotism from Cheri Yecke’s wikipedia article (sections of which I personally contributed to and had to restore due to his moronic vandalism)”–
“Moronic vandalism”? You despicable dunghill, I didn’t start deleting other entries until after my entries had been deleted repeatedly. All I did was add links to my personal blog — the Wickedpedia rules generally prohibit links to personal blogs but links to other personal blogs were allowed and so links to my personal blog should have been allowed too. The whole story is here on the discussion page of Cheri Yecke’s biography —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheri_Yecke#Advocacy_for_intelligent_design
Wickedpedia’s reputation is so bad that at least one school district has blocked Wickedpedia on all of the district’s computers.
–“back when she was running for Florida’s education commissioner. (And we all know how that turned out, lol”–
She was one of three finalists chosen from 24 candidates considered to be qualified for the position, so I don’t see what’s so funny.
Cheryl Shepherd-Adams driveled,
–“Seriously? Whoa.”–
Why don’t you give me a chance to respond first, jerko.
Wickedpedia’s reputation is so bad that at least one school district has blocked Wickedpedia on all of the district’s computers.
Aww… You’re just sore that they modded your drivel. Obviously, it’s a conspiracy against you… or maybe you’re just a crank.
All I did was add links to my personal blog — the Wickedpedia rules generally prohibit links to personal blogs but links to other personal blogs were allowed and so links to my personal blog should have been allowed too.
Wikipedia doesn’t allow “nobodies” to add links to their personal blogs. Otherwise, everyone would do it. Anyone can put up a wordpress site, just because you did doesn’t make you somehow special or relevant to the article. Perhaps megalomania is yet another of your issues?
Come to think of it, with people like Larry here on the creationists’ side, we should just sit back and wait for the fireworks. Maybe we should give Larry a first-class ticket to Tallahassee to let him speak at the FBOE meeting tomorrow. His rants would do better to support the science standards than anything else. He should be the poster child for the creationists / teach the controversy movement. 😉
PC-Trash driveled,
–“You’re just sore that they modded your drivel. Obviously, it’s a conspiracy against you…”–
This is not just about me, dunghill. An awful lot of people are disgusted with Wickedpedia.
–“Wikipedia doesn’t allow “nobodies†to add links to their personal blogs. Otherwise, everyone would do it.”–
Then what happened to this big idea about Wikipedia being “the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit,” dunghill? And who in the hell decides who is a “nobody”? Anyway, I may have been a “nobody” before, but I am certainly not a “nobody” now — an awful lot of people involved in the evolution controversy know my name.
IMO, links to personal blogs should be allowed by Wikipedia so long as it is clear that there is no Wikipedia endorsement. External links can provide long discussions or debates about controversial issues without cluttering up Wikipedia. But if Wikipedia says no personal blogs, that rule should apply equally to everyone.
–“Anyone can put up a wordpress site, just because you did doesn’t make you somehow special or relevant to the article.”–
That is Wikipedia’s rationale for not allowing personal blogs.
–“He should be the poster child for the creationists / teach the controversy movement. “–
I thought you just called me a “nobody,” idiot. Make up your mind.
This is not just about me, dunghill. An awful lot of people are disgusted with Wickedpedia.
Strange. I’m certainly not.
Then what happened to this big idea about Wikipedia being “the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit,†dunghill? And who in the hell decides who is a “nobody� Anyway, I may have been a “nobody†before, but I am certainly not a “nobody†now — an awful lot of people involved in the evolution controversy know my name.
Well, if you knew how to read, you could read their policy on their matter. However, while I’m sure you can make out words, I believe it is your reading comprehension skill that is a problem. Hence all of your crack-pot theories.
You may have risen to a very minor notoriety as a troll on a few forums, but this is certainly not enough to get you a page on Wikipedia. I am far more famous than you will ever be, yet I don’t qualify for mention on Wikipedia either. I could care less about fame though, which is why I don’t paste my name all over blogs like you do. You seem to be desperate for attention, and loathe people who deny you that attention. Sort of reminds me of a child.
I thought you just called me a “nobody,†idiot. Make up your mind.
Apparently you do lack reading comprehension skills. My last comment was something called sarcasm, you may want to look up the word in the dictionary. See, I find it interesting that your position is so similar to most of the anti-evolutionists. You are ignorant, prone to believe conspiracy theories and baseless nonsense, and show a general lack of an education. You are precisely the sort of person I want to represent your position, because you weaken this position to the point of being laughable. You are a failure Larry. I read the comments on your blog, and the vast majority of them are making fun of you. You have no supporters, only people laughing at you and egging you on to continue being a fool. The joke, my friend, is on you.
Apparently, Larry is also a big fan of the “Oranges are related to man lol” moron who spoke earlier. Ignoramuses flock together apparently, but nobody told them that putting small piles of stupid together would just make a big pile of stupid. Don’t feel too bad Larry! I’m helping you advertise! Getcha some more hits on that hit counter you installed on your blog son! Even though it’s mostly people going to troll your blog but to you, any attention is good am I right lol?….
PC-Trash driveled,
–“Well, if you knew how to read, you could read their policy on their matter.”–
Wickedpedia is supposed to have open editing, dunghill.
–“I could care less about fame though, which is why I don’t paste my name all over blogs like you do.”–
You haven’t criticized others here for using their real names, dunghill.
–“Sort of reminds me of a child.”–
Reminds me of the child who said that emperor had no clothes.
–“I read the comments on your blog, and the vast majority of them are making fun of you.”–
That’s because they can’t counter my arguments, dunghill.
Dunghill Karl driveled,
–“Apparently, Larry is also a big fan of the “Oranges are related to man lol†moron who spoke earlier.”–
Well, he sure got his point across, didn’t he?
“I’m always kicking their butts — that’s why they don’t like me.”
— Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
My, my, Larry seems to be a bit . . . sensitive . . . about the Wikipedia thing. I hadn’t heard of that kerfuffle.
Larry & his buddy Rev. Orange Guy need to keep in mind that “They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
If Rev. Orange Guy was trying to make the point that ignorance begets ignorance, then he was quite successful. If he was trying to make the point that Florida’s kids deserve a better science education than he received or what he can deliver in his Sunday tirades, then he was effective.
Wickedpedia is supposed to have open editing, dunghill.
They do, but there is a huge difference between an open editing policy, and a free-for-all trolling / defacement policy. If you have an appropriate edit, you are more than welcome to make a change. However, you obviously only care about advertising yourself. I have looked up your edits, they were blatant ads for your site. It is obvious that you were abusing Wikipedia.
You haven’t criticized others here for using their real names, dunghill.
No one else here is trying to push their website, or edit Wikipedia to add references to themselves. Just admit it, you are an attention whore.
That’s because they can’t counter my arguments, dunghill.
Ha! All that I have seen from you so far is regurgitated creationists bullshit. You have yet to come up with a unique argument that cannot be refuted. No, they are making fun of you because you are an ignoramus, because your arguments make you sound like a redneck. Your arguments have no merit.
As for the Schwarzenegger quote… I have yet to see one argument from you that hasn’t been effectively countered. If you think you are winning some sort of debate here, then you should seriously consider switching your meds.
Cheryl –
Yes. Larry is sensitive about a lot of things. He is the type to be easily offended by objective reality. He lives in his own world, where evolution is just a myth, historical events are just myths, and fables from his 3000+ year old book are reality. In this, he has a lot in common with other fundamentalists… he would get along classically with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who happens to have a lot of the same beliefs on historical events and evolution that he does.
Alas, I think we are starting to get off-topic again. I think your “Bozo the Clown” comment is accurate. Larry marches in, and all we can see is his motley garb. He opens his mouth, and endless inanity ensues. He makes an assumption that people are laughing with him, or debating him in seriousness. He just doesn’t seem to realize how much of a fool the world takes him as. I hope someone is paying him well for this, because he is muddying his own name through his inanity.
Well, I assume this is his real name. There is a Lawrence Farfaman in CA who matches his age… but this could be a coincidence or he could be simply trolling under this poor guy’s name. I’m too lazy to research this any further. Of course, this brings up a good point: why does Larry care so much about what happens in Florida? Why doesn’t he push his agenda in CA?
Cheryl Shepherd-Adams driveled,
–“Larry seems to be a bit . . . sensitive . . . about the Wikipedia thing.”–
I’m “sensitive” about the Wickedpedia thing? Dunghill, there are whole big websites devoted to bashing Wickedpedia. One is named “Wikitruth” —
http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Main_Page
— and here’s another —
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia2/awp2_index.html
–“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.‖
They also laughed at Ponce de Leon, who sought a Fountain of Youth, and Coronado, who sought El Dorado, a city of gold.
PC-Trash driveled,
–“They do, but there is a huge difference between an open editing policy, and a free-for-all trolling / defacement policy. If you have an appropriate edit, you are more than welcome to make a change. “–
You just told me that “nobodies” are not welcome to edit Wickedpedia. Make up your stupid mind.
–“However, you obviously only care about advertising yourself. I have looked up your edits, they were blatant ads for your site. It is obvious that you were abusing Wikipedia.”–
So Wickedpedia links to the personal blogs of Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, and Wesley “Ding” Elsberry don’t “advertise” those blogs?
–“Just admit it, you are an attention whore.”–
I’ll admit it after you take three running leaps and go straight to hell, you worthless piece of crap.
–“Ha! All that I have seen from you so far is regurgitated creationists bullshit.”–
Wrong. I have raised new arguments about co-evolution. I challenge you to find those arguments anywhere on the Internet where I have not raised those arguments myself.
–“I have yet to see one argument from you that hasn’t been effectively countered.”–
My blog makes it obvious that I am winning arguments all the time, because all I get is insults, ad hominem attacks, and breathtakingly inane wisecracks from trolls like you.
–“why does Larry care so much about what happens in Florida? Why doesn’t he push his agenda in CA? “–
You wouldn’t raise that issue if I supported the Florida state science standards as written.
Why do Darwinists who don’t live in Dover, Cobb County, Kansas, Ohio, Texas, Florida, etc. care so much about what happens there? And why were hundreds of out-of-state signatures accepted on the Darwinist petition in Florida?
Larry you are a mess! Plain and simple You are a mess!
Wait… A train wreck…. thats it… You are a train wreck!
You just told me that “nobodies†are not welcome to edit Wickedpedia. Make up your stupid mind.
Once again proving that you have the reading comprehension of a six-year-old. I said, and I quote: “Wikipedia doesn’t allow “nobodies†to add links to their personal blogs.” There’s a huge difference between that and making a valid edit on an article. The former is against wikipedia policy. Had you read that policy, as you were supposed to when you signed up, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If you had any valid reading comprehension skills, I think we wouldn’t hear half of the inanity that comes out of your mouth.
So Wickedpedia links to the personal blogs of Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, and Wesley “Ding†Elsberry don’t “advertise†those blogs?
The difference is that they aren’t the ones linking the articles to their site. Once again, had you bothered to read Wikipedia’s policy, it is against self promotion.
Wrong. I have raised new arguments about co-evolution. I challenge you to find those arguments anywhere on the Internet where I have not raised those arguments myself.
Co-evolution was raised 125 years ago and debunked. Only someone as unread and ignorant as you would see this as a unique argument. Try reading, you might learn something.
My blog makes it obvious that I am winning arguments all the time, because all I get is insults, ad hominem attacks, and breathtakingly inane wisecracks from trolls like you.
Only in your own deluded little world. I have yet to see you win an argument here, or on any of the other forums that you troll on.
You wouldn’t raise that issue if I supported the Florida state science standards as written.
Ah, a re-direct. I’ll ask again. Why do you care about what happens in a state in which you do not live, Larry?
Allow me to revise my previous statement. “Co-evolution was raised 125 years ago and debunked.” should have read “Arguments against co-evolution were raised 125 years ago and debunked.”
PC-Trash moaned,
–“I said, and I quote: “Wikipedia doesn’t allow “nobodies†to add links to their personal blogs.†There’s a huge difference between that and making a valid edit on an article”–
Wrong, dunghill. On controversial subjects, adding links to Wikipedia is much better than adding text. Links take up very little space on Wikipedia whereas discussions and debates on controversial subjects on Wikipedia could go on for thousands of words and a lot of people may want to throw in their two-cents worth.
–“The former is against wikipedia policy”–
Wikipedia policy says no personal blogs, with narrow exceptions that did not apply in the case of Cheri Yecke’s biography. If an exception was made for other personal blogs, then fairness required an exception for my blog too.
–“The difference is that they aren’t the ones linking the articles to their site. Once again, had you bothered to read Wikipedia’s policy, it is against self promotion.”–
So maybe they got others to place the links for them — big deal. The effect is the same: advertising their blogs. And there is no evidence on the main page that they did not place the links themselves. I even offered to remove my name and my blog’s name from my links without demanding that the other bloggers’ names and blog names be removed also — no soap.
–“Co-evolution was raised 125 years ago and debunked.”–
Show me where it was debunked, you lying piece of crap. And there is no reason why something that was “debunked” cannot be revisited with new evidence and/or new arguments.
–“I have yet to see you win an argument here”–
You lousy dunghill, the only reason why I bother to answer your comments here is that the Darwinist visitors to this blog are too dumb to see through your obvious lies.
Wrong, dunghill. On controversial subjects, adding links to Wikipedia is much better than adding text. Links take up very little space on Wikipedia whereas discussions and debates on controversial subjects on Wikipedia could go on for thousands of words and a lot of people may want to throw in their two-cents worth.
That is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a soap box for your rants. You can add links as citations, but they have to be from a reputable source. Your fountain of drivel that you call a blog does not count as a reputable source.
Wikipedia policy says no personal blogs, with narrow exceptions that did not apply in the case of Cheri Yecke’s biography. If an exception was made for other personal blogs, then fairness required an exception for my blog too.
FCS does not count as a personal blog. Of course, I wouldn’t expect an ignoramus to understand the distinction.
So maybe they got others to place the links for them — big deal. The effect is the same: advertising their blogs. And there is no evidence on the main page that they did not place the links themselves. I even offered to remove my name and my blog’s name from my links without demanding that the other bloggers’ names and blog names be removed also — no soap.
Yes, it was your linking that was the problem. Your blog is a joke, and there is no reason for it to be linked on Wikipedia. Go crawl back under the rock you came from, and keep your Luddite beliefs to yourself.
And there is no reason why something that was “debunked†cannot be revisited with new evidence and/or new arguments.
Except you are using the same talking points. If you bothered to read, you might see that. A lot of morons think they have something unique to contribute to the world, only to be ignorant of the fact that their nonsense was already considered and rejected years before.
You lousy dunghill, the only reason why I bother to answer your comments here is that the Darwinist visitors to this blog are too dumb to see through your obvious lies.
What lies?
Sheeeesh. As Gov. Schwarzenegger would say, how many times do I have to kick your lousy butt before you just shut up permanently?
–“That is not what Wikipedia is about.”–
I know, dunghill, and that is why Wickedpedia is doomed. An easy way to resolve most disputes on Wikipedia would be to just give a brief description of the disputed item along with a note that the item is disputed and links to external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated. Wikipedia’s way of “resolving” disputes is by edit wars and censorship by Wickedpedian control freaks.
–“Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia”–
Exactly. And an online encyclopedia does not have to look like a printed encyclopedia, because an online encyclopedia can instantly link to external websites where disputed items can be discussed or debated. Welcome to the 21st century.
–“You can add links as citations, but they have to be from a reputable source.”–
The blogs of Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Sleazy PZ Myers, and Wesley “Ding” Elsberry are not reputable sources.
–“Your fountain of drivel that you call a blog does not count as a reputable source.”–
It does not have to be a reputable source, so long as there is no Wikipedia endorsement.
–“FCS does not count as a personal blog.”–
According to Wikipedia’s definition, FCS counts as a personal blog.
–“Your blog is a joke”–
You’re the joke, dunghill.
–“Except you are using the same talking points.”–
I asked you to show me where my arguments about co-evolution were debunked 125 years ago, dunghill, and you haven’t shown me.
–“What lies?”–
The question should be, “what truths?” There aren’t any.
how many times do I have to kick your lousy butt before you just shut up permanently?
Once. But, you haven’t even come close. 😉
An easy way to resolve most disputes on Wikipedia would be to just give a brief description of the disputed item along with a note that the item is disputed and links to external websites…
Wikipedia defines something called “scope”. Your inanity is outside of its scope. Should wikipedia include every inane article that people can think of? Should it include every possible conspiracy theory or revisionist historian crack-pot? No. You fall outside of this scope, and no whining is going to change this.
It does not have to be a reputable source, so long as there is no Wikipedia endorsement.
Disreputable sources tend to be weeded out by edits, including your useless blog.
The question should be, “what truths?†There aren’t any.
I’d recommend that you start reading at the talk origins site, but you have already proved that you have the reading comprehension of a six-year-old.
http://www.talkorigins.org
–“Should wikipedia include every inane article that people can think of? “–
YES, so long as (1) it is clear that there is no endorsement by Wikipedia and (2) the discussions or debates of the disputed items are on external websites in order to avoid cluttering up Wikipedia. The alternatives — edit wars and arbitrary censorship by Wickedpedian control freaks — are unacceptable. It has even been suggested that a lot of Wikipedia vandalism is retaliation for arbitrary censorship of Wikipedia entries. People don’t realize that arbitrary censorship is a bigger source of error on Wikipedia than open edting, because arbitrary censorship prevents Wikipedia from being self-correcting.
And who decides what is “inane” — you? There are no objective standards for determining what is “inane,” and to the Wickedpedian control freaks, anything that they disagree with is “inane” (just like you). And Wikipedia administrators have no particular qualifications — in a recent scandal, a high-ranking Wikipedia contributor who claimed to be a college professor of theology turned out to be a college dropout.
–“I’d recommend that you start reading at the talk origins site”–
The talk.origins website has an article about co-evolution but the article does not even address the issues I have raised.
Not that it really matters, but you still have not shown me that 125-year-old refutation of my arguments concerning co-evolution.
Larry –
You don’t seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Not everything under the sun belongs in an encyclopedia. Your rubbish certainly doesn’t. People seem to forget the aims of the project, which is why many articles are often deleted. Wikipedia has a list of standards that articles must meet for inclusion or to prevent them from being deleted.
but the article does not even address the issues I have raised.
Which issues would those be?
–“You don’t seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia.”–
It is not just an encyclopedia — it is an online open-editing encyclopedia. This means that it is inevitable that it will be edited by people with conflicting ideas. The ways that Wikipedia has chosen to deal with those conflicts are edit wars and arbitrary censorship by Wickedpedian control-freak administrators. There is a better way of dealing with these conflicts: inserting a short description of the disputed item along with a note that the item is disputed and one or more links to external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated. This avoids cluttering up Wikipedia with long disputes and avoids any suggestion of Wikipedia endorsement of disputed facts or controversial ideas. This method won’t resolve every Wikipedia dispute but it will resolve an awful lot of them.
–“Your rubbish certainly doesn’t.”–
There is no objective standard for deciding what is rubbish, dunghill. I think that the crap you post here is rubbish. Does that mean that your crap should not be allowed here?
–“People seem to forget the aims of the project, which is why many articles are often deleted. “–
None of my disputes on Wikipedia involved whole articles — my disputes only involved very small additions to existing Wikipedia articles, maybe just some links and a single sentence or a single line.
Anyway, I have no more interest in trying to improve Wikipedia — I consider it to be a lost cause.
–“but the article does not even address the issues I have raised.
Which issues would those be? “–
One of the big issues in the co-evolution of total co-dependence between two organisms is that there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be initially absent locally — this contrasts with evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment , e.g., water, land, and air.
Does that mean that your crap should not be allowed here?
It certainly wouldn’t be allowed on Wikipedia.
There is a better way of dealing with these conflicts: inserting a short description of the disputed item along with a note that the item is disputed and one or more links to external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated.
This would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not meant to hold articles on fake controversy, like your irrational belief that evolution is seriously disputed. Like what I said, you are just upset that your attention whoring was shut down on Wikipedia.
my disputes only involved very small additions to existing Wikipedia articles
Such as injecting links to your own blog, creating controversy where there is none, etc. You were blatantly advertising your own blog. I’ve read the edits. You were wrong. Get over yourself.
One of the big issues in the co-evolution of total co-dependence between two organisms is that there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be initially absent locally — this contrasts with evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment , e.g., water, land, and air.
Name an example.
I’ve been over this stuff many times already and I am just plain sick of your crap, you lousy sack of shit.
–“This would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia.”–
No, your ideas defeat the purpose of Wikipedia.
Let me repeat — Wikipedia is an online open-editing encyclopedia. It is completely different from a printed encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, many disputes can be quickly resolved by adding (1) a brief statement of the disputed item, (2) a note that the item is disputed, and (3) links to external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated. This (1) uses an insignificant amount of space on Wikipedia and (2) avoids implying Wikipedia endorsement. Your way — edit wars and arbitrary censorship by Wickedpedian control-freak administrators — is unworkable and unfair.
–“It is not meant to hold articles on fake controversy,”–
There are no objective standards for deciding what is a fake controversy.
–“Such as injecting links to your own blog, creating controversy where there is none, etc. You were blatantly advertising your own blog.”–
And you are creating controversy here where there is none.
As for advertising my blog, what about the other personal blogs that are being “advertised” on Wikipedia?
Dunghill, I linked to my blog in order to avoid cluttering up Wikipedia with long discussions and debates — not to “advertise” my blog. What do you propose I do — just paste my blog articles in Wikipedia?
This is my last response to you, you worthless sack of shit. You can just keep pissing in the wind.
Hmmm.. the close tag didn’t work. Second paragraph mine.
Yikes! Hopefully that fixes the problem.
No, your ideas defeat the purpose of Wikipedia.
I haven’t given my own ideas. I’ve only explained Wikipedia policy. You don’t seem to comprehend Wikipedia policy, which is why they IP-banned you. Communities have rules. You violated those rules. They expelled you from that community. Case closed. You lose.
There are no objective standards for deciding what is a fake controversy.
Well, the insignificant minority of biologists who dissent from evolution, most of which who are paid by, or profit from their dissension makes this controversy a non-issue. Making this controversy seem like a major issue, like you and your creationist friends have been trying to do, is a fake controversy.
As for advertising my blog, what about the other personal blogs that are being “advertised†on Wikipedia?
You cannot link to your own work, or your own blog. It would be just as bad as you creating an article about yourself. You are in the wrong. Get over yourself. Quit whining already.
This is my last response to you,
I can only hope it will be your last post here. 😉
Wait… if you stop responding to me, then that means that you won’t be able to use that inane quote from Schwarzenegger any more. Apparently, you don’t want to stick around when you start losing arguments.
Kevin Vicklund said,
–“According to the rules, you are not supposed to reference any of your own works. “–
No, the rules just say no personal blogs, with narrow exceptions that did not apply here. Why in the hell should it matter who actually posts the links?
I myself think that links to personal blogs should be allowed so long as there is no implication of Wikipedia endorsement.
Wikipedia’s big mistake was trying to look like a printed encyclopedia. That can’t work in an open-editing online encyclopedia, where you have a lot of different editors with conflicting views. Wikipedia is OK on non-controversial subjects, but on controversial subjects it has failed miserably.
but on controversial subjects it has failed miserably.
Fake controversy.
The funny thing is that if Wikipedia allowed this sort of rubbish, then Larry “I’ll call you a dunghill” Fafarman would have no problem with it.
Dawkins on Hitler
Interesting article:
Oxford Scientist Examines the Benefits of Hitler’s Breeding Program
by Lawrence Ford
In a supposed “letter to the editor” last week for the Sunday Herald of Scotland titled “Eugenics may not be bad,” Oxford professor Dr. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and leading evangelist for Darwinian evolution, defended the need to examine the positive benefits of selective human breeding or “eugenics” as Hitler had attempted in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
Actually, the Sunday Herald had lifted the Dawkins content from the Afterword in a new book by John Brockman titled What is Your Dangerous Idea? Eugenics is defined as “the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).”1
Some have called eugenics “racial hygiene,” a cleansing of the races to promote the good and eliminate the bad.
Hitler’s Nazi regime enacted the “Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring” in 1933, which effectively gave the Third Reich free reign to forcibly sterilize selected segments of German society as determined in the “Genetic Health Courts.” Other Nazi laws went further, such as Action T4, resulting in the euthanizing (aka murder) of millions by the end of the war, mostly Jews.
Dawkins, who has been called “Darwin’s Rottweiler” because of his aggressive defense of Darwinian evolution and his even more scathing attacks upon people of faith, considers the idea of eugenics natural:
…if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?
If there is no difference between cows and horses and dogs and humans, then Dawkins’ logic is rational and humans should expect to live on the Planet of the Apes, where we will eventually be bred for utilitarian purposes by more highly-evolved apes.
The scenario is, of course, ridiculous, but the moral vacuum in Dawkins’ reasoning still pushes him to toy with the possibilities:
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
Not surprisingly, Professor Dawkins has also backed a proposal for the United Nations to confer human rights on apes.
The Apostle Paul commented on this Godless logic long ago:
“For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 1:25 NASB).
References
1″eugenics.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. 26 Nov. 2006.
Very frightening indeed !
Man –
Are you going to cut and paste this all over? Do you have nothing unique to say, or are you simply “trolling for Jesus”?
Also, that quote mine is taken entirely out of context, at least from what I’ve read online. That particular book that was quote mined happens to be on my Amazon reading list, so I’ll be able to answer this troll better in a week or two.