There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Cover story (sticky)
It's a good article(as the Silver award), and with how Creationism could possibly be considered one of the more knownpseudosciences. A few touch-ups in some places might be the only thing needed. Custom (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
History of creationism
Intelligently Designed: How Creationists Built the Campaign against Evolution. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I think this article should be at least a silver
Was there really a reason to do that? This article was apparently already judged as a good one over a long period of time and the snarky tone of the altered section fits the nature of the site. Arawn Emrys (talk)
The foundational falsehoods of creationism
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK: it already is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- As it is used of all articles the term becomes invisible.
- Probably most people even while accepting evolution as a reasonable explanation (even if sometimes complexified by eg one species evolving in tandem with others or being specifically selected for traits by another - do ants specifically select aphids on the basis of their sugar production?) probably wonders at why there are so many species and how did such complexity develop ('sensory spots' once developed can be adapted to register light/sound/pressure etc - but how did they become eyes and ears etc; hibernation makes sense - but how did pupation develop? etc) 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Why no Young-Earth atheists?
Have you ever noticed how everyone who holds to a young age of the Earth is religious? If the Earth really were only a few thousand years old, then shouldn't there be at least one non-religious scientist to pick up on the fact? There ought to be at least one PhD.-holder going around saying "I don't belive in any sort of god, but I have found considerable evidence that the Earth may not be as old as we previously thought. But again, just because the Earth is a world that's only 6,000 years old, it does not necessarily follow that it is a world that was also put there by some powerful supernatural entity."