Obsolete biology theories is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This category is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the category attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I feel creationism should be removed from the list for two reason: 1. It has not been disproven nor has evolution (its competing theory) been sufficiently proven that it can be considered a law. It is still in the theory state. 2. Listing creationism as an obsolete theory is biased in favor of evolution. Bias is prohibited by Wikipedia. - 3/23/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.176.14 (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you look at its guidelines, Wikipedia is based on neither "feelings," personal religious beliefs, nor fringe sources. Instead, it is based upon published sources, which according to Wikipedia standards are credible and reliable. There exist an enormous number of such academic sources that conclude that creationism has been soundly disproved and discredited to the point that it qualifies as an obsolete biological theories. Paul H. (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Except that it hasn't been 'soundly disproven', and there are just as many published sources and credentialed scientists who are willing to attest to the shortcomings of Darwinism and to what the evidence may really say, that it might just well fight the Bible's view better. It isn't just 'personal feelings or religious beliefs or fringe sources'. People should stop denying that the debate exists and that the controversy isn't over. The first poster is right, the article needs to be removed as it is not obsolete. It belongs in a disputed theories category. The real problem is that Wikipedia, despite its claims of neutrality, is indeed liberally biased due to the beliefs of its creators. It isn't really 'neutral POV' at all.
