Latest piece of bigotry from CMI

[a_haworthroberts]

Concerning Wikipedia.

https://creation.com/wikipedia (the CMI home page equates systematic discrimination against biblical creation with 'biased articles' - which is strange since Christians are supposed to believe in truth and to be biased - as I am - against falsehoods and lies)

According to this self-justifying article "Wikipedia is rife with overt falsehoods and bias against biblical creationists". Does he offer an example showing this? No - he does not. Probably because he can't. Instead he moans about these factual comments:
"Pseudoscience usually relies on attacking mainstream scientific theories and methodology while lacking a critical discourse itself (as is common among Biblical creationists) ...";
"Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. It is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories (the phrase 'lacking a critical discourse itself' is not very clear; Price suggests the comment is false because "all the articles on this site, for example, undergo a peer review process" (but the review is limited to people who sign up to CMI's narrow religious Statement of Faith and who always reject any science claims that they think contradict the Bible - whilst making up alternative claims that don't)).

As the article describes, Paul Price also got into a catfight with Wikipedia over something to do with Jonathan Sarfati (who has also previously dissed Wikipedia in his writings). Price was indignant over this page, specifically its footnote 6 - even though the sentence in question is FACTUAL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati

"I raised a fuss at Wikipedia over Jonathan Sarfati’s biographical page including a defamatory quote from Eugenie Scott calling Refuting Evolution 2 a “crude piece of propaganda”. To make a long story short, I wound up getting banned indefinitely on that account ...".

Price comes across as a bigot extraordinaire. One who hates facts he doesn't like. And presumably wants them kept hidden from those who consult Wikipedia.

Wikipedia should of course not be regarded as 'infallible' - I can't think of anyone who treats it in that way.

Is this page acceptable to Price?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_ ... ernational

[a_haworthroberts]

PS
https://watermark.silverchair.com/53-3- ... uc7_pKqDhg
That remark against Sarfati that Wikipedia cites - in its context.

[a_haworthroberts]

I forwarded the link to my post here to CMI for information and received a somewhat curt email response from Price:

"Dear ashley haworth-roberts, I am not going to be drawn into a flame war with you on an overtly anti-creationist forum. I do thank you, however, for linking to my article there and perhaps if anyone with a genuinely open mind happens to go read it, they'll be able to see how ridiculously you are misrepresenting both my article and the issues under discussion! If you have any constructive comments or questions, feel free to submit them-- but trying to draw the discussion away onto your own preferred forum is not going to fly. -Paul."

I neither misrepresented his article (which I linked to and quoted from though I did not address every single topic raised) nor the issues involved - and Price is lying. I would repeat - stating that Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch strongly criticised one of Jonathan Sarfati's books is a fact and not a falsehood. Price was upset and wanted the fact in question removed from Wikipedia.

For his information I was not wanting him to engage me in a 'flame war' either here or via email. I simply wanted to inform CMI of my opinion (I'm banned from making any comment under any of their website articles).

I continue to believe (it's my opinion not any official 'BCSE opinion') that he and people like him are bigots - his reply does not reduce that conviction.

I am forwarding this further reply - for information not for provocation.

Pages like Wikipedia should not be used to support minority religious (or anti-religious) agendas. (There is creationwiki and rationalwiki for that.)