Discussion of Big Science Today, by an Important Member of the National Association of Scholars

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Eddie

@Roy

I see you omitted my comment about the page having been heavily edited since Sanger wrote that. Even if it was biased then, it may not be biased now.

I have been monitoring that particular Wikipedia page (along with a number of others related to design, creationism, evolution, and connected topics) for many years now, starting from years before Sanger wrote the comment. I can verify that it has not changed substantially in contents or tone. In contents, bits have been added, and bits dropped, but the enduring core is the same as it was, and sometimes in exactly the same words. It still projects the same judgmental attitude (incompatible with the proper tone of an encyclopedia) and contains the same errors (e.g., that ID is a form of creationism) that it has always had.

1. Describing pseudoscience as pseudoscience is not judgemental.
2. That’s not an error. ID is a form of creationism. It is literally scientific creationism with ‘God’ replaced with ‘a designer’

If you want to try to insult the readers’ intelligence by supporting Wikipedia’s lame excuse that they removed Bechly’s article, not because of his ID sympathies, but because they changed their mind and decided that his scientific accomplishments weren’t worthy of a Wikipedia page, you are welcome to do so, …

Straw-man. What I’m actually going to do is note that the treatment of Bechly’s page is not evidence that a different page is biased.

I note that you have suddenly shifted from referring to Wikipedia authors as such a diverse group that prevents conclusions about one page being applied to another, to treating them as a single entity with a unified opinion.

I’d also like to add that the removal of Gunter Bechly’s page may be an indication of bias against IDers, but that would depend on who created the page originally, and why; and why it was deleted, none of which I know for certain. It could also be recognition that while Bechly was once a distinguished scientist, his recent output indicates he’s become a dishonest charlatan.

It could also be simply because Bechly is German, and considered less relevant to English audiences. Bechly still has a page on the German version of Wikipedia. So anyone claiming he was removed from Wikipedia because he’s an ID advocate would have to explain why the German page still exists.