Tag: Wikipedia
(Not) Making the Grade: An Evaluation of 22 Recent Biology Textbooks and Their Use of Selected Icons of Evolution
Unfortunately, as this review has made clear, biology textbooks have a long way to go. Parents, students and educators who seek accuracy and objectivity in evolution-education will have to continue to be a “royal pain in the fanny” of textbook publishers.
Rebel with a Nobel Prize: The Lesson of Daniel Shechtman
Are quasicrystals an example of information arising from chemistry? What can we learn from Dr. Shechtman’s example?
Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry
It is important, in evaluating these arguments, that one consider all the evidence: not just the evidence that is consistent. It seems to me that when this is done, the arguments for common descent — certainly in its universal sense — are, at best, inconclusive.
Notice to Students: Wikipedia No Longer an Acceptable Source
According to a recent article in the Seattle Times, “School officials unite in banning Wikipedia,” because “[t]here have been many cases of incorrect information on the Web site, some of which has been biased.” The article reports that sadly, “A teacher researching Martin Luther King Jr. found white supremacist information in his entry.” Dr. King is one of my personal heroes. His perseverance in support of a just cause, and his calls for civil, reasoned responses to false personal attacks and persecution should be seen as a model for any ID proponent on how to behave in the present political climate. Thus, it is tragically unsurprising that Wikipedia, which promotes so much incorrect and biased information against intelligent design, should Read More ›
Wikipedia “Intelligent Design” Entry Selectively Cites Poll Data to Present Misleading Picture of Support for Intelligent Design
I recently discussed how Wikipedia has inaccurate information on intelligent design, or constantly rebuts (fallaciously) the claims of ID proponents. This post looks at merely two sentences out of the long Wikipedia entry on intelligent design and finds inaccuracy, misrepresentation, bias, and hypocrisy. These two sentences come from Wikipedia’s discussion of polls and intelligent design. Wikipedia presently states: According to a 2005 Harris poll, ten percent of adults in the United States view human beings as “so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them”.[17] Although some polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls have been criticized as suffering from considerable flaws, such as having a low response rate (248 Read More ›