Act of Censorship? Wikipedia Page for Scientist Who Supports Intelligent Design Deleted

Proponents of Intelligent Design are crying foul after the Wikipedia page for a respected scientist who believes that God created the universe with a purpose was recently deleted.

Günter Bechly is a paleo-entomologist in Germany whose areas of expertise include fossil history and insect origins. A Roman Catholic, Bechly says he grew up in a secular home but concluded later that the evidence for Darwinian evolution is weak and the data pointing to Intelligent Design is strong.

“Many people think that somebody who comes to doubt the neo-Darminian process and embraces intelligent design probably was religious from the very beginning, probably is an evangelical Christian, and has his axes to grind—his religious axe to grind,” Bechly said in a documentary published recently on YouTube by the Discovery Institute. “I came via a totally different path…I’m coming from a family background which is totally secular, agnostic. [I] was not baptized, didn’t join any kind of religious education, never went to church, so I was completely irreligious.”

Bechly says he rejects atheism, materialism, naturalism and scientism, and that his work as a scientist led him to believe in the hand of God in creation.

“My conversion was based on a critical evaluation of empirical data and philosophical arguments, following the evidence wherever it leads,” he wrote on his personal blog. “I am skeptical of the neo-Darwinian theory of macro-evolution and support Intelligent Design theory for purely scientific reasons.”

After first expressing his support for Intelligent Design in 2015, Bechly has repeatedly criticized Darwinian evolution and pointed out scientific evidence for a designer. When, as previously reported, a prominent biologist admitted the shortcomings of evolutionary theory at a recent meeting of the Royal Society in London, Bechly, who was in attendance at the event, took to Facebook to critique the “explanatory deficits” of evolution.

“After this conference I am more assured than ever that evolutionary biology is an emperor without clothes, and Intelligent Design is the best explanation of biological complexity and diversity,” he stated.

  • Connect with Christian News

Although Bechly has written dozens of scientific papers and graduated summa cum laude with a Ph.D. in geosciences from the University of Tübingen in Germany, his Wikipedia page was recently deleted after several Wikipedia users agreed that his “notability” was insufficient.

“[Bechly] lacks a strong enough citation level to pass academic notability guideline, nothing else to suggest notability,” wrote Wikipedia user John Pack Lambert in an online discussion board before the page was deleted.

“His turn to fringe creationist views does not seem to be notable at all, and cannot be covered without mainstream sources giving it an adequately neutral point of view,” another proposed.

David Klinghoffer of the Discovery Institute, where Bechly serves as a senior fellow, believes the deletion of Bechly’s Wikipedia page is an instance of censorship against ID.

“This is a big deal, and a reminder of a key dynamic in the debate about ID,” wrote Klinghoffer in a recent blog post. Pointing out that Bechly lost his job as a museum curator after revealing his support for the theory of Intelligent Design, Klinghoffer says the Wikipedia page deletion is “another act of censorship” against his colleague.

“We have documented a range of instances of censorship and intimidation,” Klinghoffer added. “Rarely, though, do the censors reveal themselves as clearly as in the case of Wikipedia versus Bechly.”

“Clearly, the editors trying to erase Dr. Bechly’s record do not have some sort of knockdown, objective algorithmic case against him,” he continued. “It’s a mad world, a funhouse world, where the notability of a paleontologist of Günter Bechly’s stature is uncontested one day but, following his admission of finding ID persuasive, suddenly and furiously contested.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Amos Moses – He>i

    WICKED- pedia ……….

    • TruthvLIes

      I like it Amos.

    • Lexical Cannibal

      No, no, wait, I’ve got it.

      WICCA-pedia!

      That one’s on the house.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        LOL ….. thats a good one ….

  • BuckeyePhysicist

    I’m on his side. I’m also a Catholic scientist and I believe faith and science are complementary and compatible. They are not at odds. The more I study science and mathematics the more I see God’s hand in creation.

    • james blue

      What scientific evidence is there for God?

      • TruthvLIes

        What scientific evidence is there that there is no God?

        • james blue

          Apparently you are confused as to what scientific evidence is.

          • TruthvLIes

            Apparently you give a typical non answer to a question you dont want to answer.

          • james blue

            Okay well I’m an adult….so……

          • TruthvLIes

            Prove it.

        • GalapagosPete

          We don’t need to provide evidence that there isn’t a god; you’ve made up a claim out of whole cloth, so it’s up to you to defend it. Just because someone claims that fairies exist doesn’t mean it’s likely because I can’t disprove the claim.

          • TruthvLIes

            The atheists are adamant that he who makes the original claim has to provide the evidence. As yet I have not seem any evidence that God does not exist. Over to you.

          • GalapagosPete

            I’m not claiming that god doesn’t exist; I am claiming, quite correctly, that no good evidence for its existence has even been presented so there is no good reason to believe it does. Now, give us your best evidence. We’ll wait here.

          • TruthvLIes

            Do you go around with a white walking stick because your comment suggests that you are blind to the obvious.

          • GalapagosPete

            Well, if it’s obvious you should have no problem providing us with your devastatingly incontrovertible evidence, then explaining *why* it’s good evidence for your god as opposed to also being good evidence for another god or a natural process. Don’t worry about our feelings, we can take the humiliation we no doubt richly deserve that you’re about to put us through for not being able to see the *obvious*. Go!

          • TruthvLIes

            No point as atheists don’t want evidence they want an arguement.

            I told an atheist who asked for proof of God’s existence that there are over one million sites on the internet that prove his existence, some of which do so purely from a scientific perspective.

            His reply…I don’t have time to look up the internet. His loss, not mine.

          • GalapagosPete

            If there’s “over a million” such sites then it should be completely trivial for you to give us the best website that “proves” the existence of your god. I assure you, if there is a god that will actually condemn us to eternal punishment for refusing to actively accept its existence then we really want to know about it. If you have such information it seems to me that it’s your human obligation to share it with us, so you should as a matter of decency provide us with a website that has this information so we can know the truth.

          • TruthvLIes

            Such a silly, silly comment.

            God does not condemn us to eternal punishment. We condemn ourselves. if you want nothing to do with God in your 70 years on earth, what makes you think that you would want anything to do with him for eternity?

            Since day one, the church has been sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. Having done it myself, I am fully aware that there are people who do not want to know.

            And as God does not violate my free will, he and I do not violate the free will of those that don’t want to know.

          • ppp777

            ” They are without excuse “

          • This style 10/6

            You’re going to have a long,long wait!

          • DrIndica

            I doubt I will live that long.

          • GalapagosPete

            Tsk, tsk, such cynicism. I’m sure TruthvLies has been chomping at the bit waiting for someone to just ask so he could provide all the good evidence for his claims.

          • ppp777

            A reprobate will never listen to evidence , they hate God .

          • Rich

            God doesn’t have to be “proved” or “disproved” , He just needs to be believed in or not. You have chosen “not” and that is your right.
            If you are right, you will die, rot and be eaten by worms and that will be that, if however you are wrong, you will stand before the creator of the universe and answer for your unbelief.
            I believe, and if I am wrong, then I will die, rot and be eáten by worms, however I go with hope and faith and joy in what Jesus did for me.
            Death for me is not an end but an incredible beginning.
            I hope someday Pete, that He reveals Himself to you.
            Take care.

          • GalapagosPete

            I have no reason to believe in something for which there is no good evidence. If your god actually exists and yet chooses not to reveal itself to me – hides, in fact – then it doesn’t get my belief. If I have to answer for that unbelief, I will happily do so, and if your god is a decent one, it will accept that my unbelief was genuine and legitimate.

            However, I don’t believe in it now, and never will without good evidence.

          • TruthvLIes

            Your first statement is so ridiculous it is unbelievable. For those that genuinely want evidence it is there on a daily basis. it is not there if you are not looking for it.

            I have been a follower of Jesus for 63 years and the more I learn and see and hear the more convinced I am God exists.

            Ten years ago God took me up to heaven to meet him face to face and to have a conversation. No one will convince me that he does not exist after an encounter like that.

            In your determination to refuse the evidence and in your cynicism that results you will never find God in anything. You are destined to never know because you have stuck two fingers up and told him you’re the master of your destiny and do you know what, he won’t interfere if that is what you want.

            He will let you without interference seal your fate and let you go to your chosen destination and saying I don’t believe it exists does not mean that it does not exist.

            Only an ignorant moron would be so stupid to test their hypothesis without any evidence when it is too late to do anything about it.

          • GalapagosPete

            Depends on what you call evidence; one could say that plants are “evidence” of the existence of a god, but it isn’t *good* evidence because we have another explanation that does not require invoking beings for which we have no evidence except that someone considers that being “”necessary.”

            And I have been a not-follower of any god for 59 years and I have never seen anything at all that suggests to me that gods exist. Nor do I find personal revelation to be compelling, as I cannot examine it for myself.

            If you fail to present me with good evidence for your claims – even to the point of refusing to say what it *is*, much less why I should accept it – you cannot say that I am refusing it. And I assure you, I have no more stuck two fingers up toward nor made any declaration to your god than I have Lex Luthor or Lord Voldemort, and for the same reason.

            But I do agree with you that it will take no action with respect to me because it is non-existent and therefore *cannot* take any action. When you have something to actually present in the way of evidence I can examine, please let me know.

          • TruthvLIes

            You atheists are so funny. You keep going on about evidence and when it is presented to you the usual response is “That is not evidence.”

            I have read it so many times I have decided that it is no use casting pearls before swine.

          • GalapagosPete

            Unfortunately, so far you haven’t been able to come up with any pearls. You keep bringing us what you insist are pearls, but when examined they turn out to be something…quite unlike pearls, and then you get mad at us for insisting on examining them instead of just taking your word.

            Find some actual pearls and be ready to demonstrate that they’re really pearls. Then we can talk.

          • TruthvLIes

            Sorry but my experience is we can’t talk. As one atheist truthfully answered I don’t want evidence, I want an argument. I have found that to be the case.

            So you will have to forgive me if I choose not to cast pearls before swine. I know it is frustrating for you but you have created the situation so as they say you made the bed so you have to lie on it.

          • GalapagosPete

            Then why are you here? Or, more to the point, why do you not just ignore atheists who respond to your posts if you really believe all they want to do is argue and aren’t genuinely looking for evidence that keeps being promised but never delivered?

          • TruthvLIes

            That of course begs the question, why are you here?

            This is a Christian news site so logic would tell you why I am here.

            And as this is a Christian news site logic would tell me that the only reason you are here is to be as bloody minded as possible because you have some delusion of grandeur which tells you that these Christians need your godless wisdom which they don’t.

          • GalapagosPete

            Well, it may raise the question, but it doesn’t beg it. Which is merely my pedantic way os pointing out that “begging the question” doesn’t mean what you think it means. But the answer to your question – which I’m giving you before you answer mine, or before I even know whether you *will* answer – is that I am here to find the reasonable ones and engage with them, hoping to plant a seed that will lead them away from irrational beliefs, i.e., beliefs that, even if they should ultimately turn out to be correct, are held for irrational reasons. And are, therefore, unlikely to be true.

            It’s also me pointing out that you are avoiding the question – if atheists as a class – despite our claims to the contrary – have no interest in reasoning but are merely interested in arguing for arguments’ sake, why would you bother to engage us at all? Why respond? What do you hope to accomplish? I mean, if you are just hoping to cause an instant – or even slow – conversion, well, okay, I guess, but I have been doing this for several years, and while I have no trouble being snarky to them what deserves it, I much prefer productive engagement.

            Let me make two further points: this site has no problem with atheists posting here, as long as their rules are followed with respect to decorum – and perhaps a little beyond, since like all such sites they depend on traffic.

            And, as far as I’m concerned, *all* wisdom – and stupidity, for that matter – is godless. None of it comes from gods because there aren’t any; I’m willing to be convinced otherwise but that’s only going to happen with *good* evidence, which does not include theists saying that because there are some things we can’t explain, or because life is too complex to have occurred naturally (although, as a theist admitted to me elsewhere, were everything designed simply, that would also be evidence for their god, so that kinda throws the whole complexity argument out the wind, it seems to me), their attempts at so-called “logical” arguments.

            Yeah, that went on for a bit. Sorry.

            So, are you interested in engaging civilly, or would you rather just ignore me from now on? Because I’m not about to stop showing up when I feel I have something to say, regardless of how the majority of posters here feel about it. Up to you.

          • TruthvLIes

            “is that I am here to find the reasonable ones and engage with them, hoping to plant a seed that will lead them away from irrational beliefs, i.e., beliefs that, even if they should ultimately turn out to be correct, are held for irrational reasons. And are, therefore, unlikely to be true.”

            You are not the first atheist to have delusions of grandeur.

            The number of people you will lead away from our belief in the Risen Christ is exactly ZERO. Others have tried and failed miserably. You will fail miserably as well because logic tells us that leaving a faith that offers us everything even though we don’t deserve it for something that offers us nothing is plain madness.

            If you want to be mad go right ahead but don’t think that we are going to voluntarily give up common sense to embrace madness.

          • LynnRH

            No conversion to non-belief going on here with me anyway. I don’t have to have proof of a Creator God. I totally feel Him in my soul. NO ONE will ever convert me to unbelief.

          • TruthvLIes

            Thankyou Lynn and God bless you.

          • GalapagosPete

            Perhaps I will not, yet I am ethically obligated to try, especially since many have turned away from your irrational beliefs, even if I didn’t have anything to do with it. If I can help just one the effort is worth it.

            This madness, my friend, is yours.

          • TruthvLIes

            Atheists tell me that they are offended by Christians trying to convert people to their way of thinking but they don’t seem to have any problem trying to convert people to their way of thinking.

            Now, what is the word for that?? Ah yes I know. Hypocritical.

          • GalapagosPete

            Really? It’s a bad idea to make generalizations based on a limited number of examples. Because I always find it kind of sad when someone tries to convince me of something for which no good evidence has ever been presented – like gods. I feel sorry for them.

            Now, in my experience, most of the people who believe in gods do so because their lives have not worked out as they’d hoped, or they’ve suffered some loss, so they need to feel that there’s a reason and perhaps there will be an afterlife that will be better. That makes me sad that they’ve given up and embraced irrationality. Others have never really thought about it, they were just raised that way and kept going with it. Still pretty sad.

            For others it’s basically a social club.

            See, there’s two types of Christians – the ones who think they have good evidence, and the ones who know they don’t; the first kind tells you that trees are evidence of god. The second won’t state what their evidence is, because they know it’s feeble. So they say presenting it would be “casting pearls before swine,” or some other such excuse so they don’t have to try to defend the indefensible.

            How’s that working out for you? I hear organized religion is losing ground, so…not very well, I’d say.

          • TruthvLIes

            Thank You for making it clear you don’t know what you are taking about.

            I hear and in my experience doesn’t carry much weight with those that deal in facts.

            I hear that monkeys are being employed to run the railways. That doesn’t prove that they are.

            It sounds like you get your exercise jumping to conclusions.

            There are two types of atheists. Those who can’t handle the truth and those who specialise in lying.

          • GalapagosPete

            Really? Where have you heard that about monkeys? What is the source? Why do you consider the source reliable? Now, had you said that you had seen for yourself that there were monkeys running railroads that would carry some weight.

            Regardless of your opinion that is still my experience, and I said “most of the people” believe because they needed to, not all. Though either way it’s irrational.

            And you haven’t demonstrated that it’s true, so neither can you say that anyone is lying.

          • TruthvLIes

            And you have evidence that most people believe because they need to? No, I thought not. You are just shooting from the lip which is the favourite pastime of atheists.

            I haven’t demonstrated that it is true because it is not. Most people believe because the Holy Spirit showed them who jesus is and what he has done for them.

            And the only religion losing ground is atheism. I saw somewhere I think it was the USA, their numbers had nearly halved.

          • GalapagosPete

            Again, your reading comprehension fails you: I said that, IN MY EXPERIENCE, most people’s faith is caused by some sort of negative experience(s) or by having a life that generally stinks. Obviously I cannot say that is the case for all theists, or even most, only that this is my experience with the ones that I am personally acquainted with.

          • TruthvLIes

            In my time at university, I was not allowed to present anecdotal evidence as proof.

          • GalapagosPete

            Well, we’re not at university, so don’t worry about it.

          • TruthvLIes

            Pleased to hear you are not at university. There is sufficient dumbing down without you adding to it.

          • carolyn

            Well lies vs truth, with your degree in Social Science, Degrees (Plural) inTheology, degree in politics, and no doubt teaching qualification to have been an english teacher, you would know.

          • GalapagosPete

            Oh, childish ad hominem. The last resort of the loser.

          • carolyn

            Hysterical. You have yet to present a single shred of evidence for anything and constantly make nonsensical comments. “homosexuals have admitted to having about 500 sex partners in a year”

          • TruthvLIes

            Atheists constantly make generalisations based on a limited number of examples. For example they will talk about “religion” and encompass every expression of it in the same terms which cannot be further from the truth. But then, why ruin a good story by telling the truth?

          • GalapagosPete

            All examples are a limited number, but at some point you have enough to reach a conclusion. I have numerous examples of people believing in gods for no good reason. I have numerous examples of bad reasons for belief, and numerous examples of those like you who use the “You wouldn’t believe it anyway” excuse to avoid having to even attempt offering evidence.

            And, again, you are simply talking without giving examples of what you mean, almost certainly because you cannot; this seems to be your MO. Claim, claim, claim but never explain because it would be immediately obvious that your “explanation” was simply absurd.

            And you haven’t demonstrated that what you claim to believe is true.

          • TruthvLIes

            The only reason we haven’t wasted our time providing evidence to people like you because the Bible tells us not to cast pearls before swine.

          • GalapagosPete

            First, you have no way of determining who the swine are unless you cast these pearls you claim to have. Second, I don’t believe you have any pearls. In any case, even if you have the finest of pearls, they don’t do anyone any good unless they are cast.

          • TruthvLIes

            There speaks a “I know it all” atheist.

          • GalapagosPete

            No, it just seems to you that I know everything. And you’re still hiding behind that lame excuse. If you had confidence in your beliefs you would be more than happy to present your evidence.

          • TruthvLIes

            As I have said many times, I do not cast pearls before swine so you will have to pig out on something else.

          • GalapagosPete

            And as I’ve said, you don’t have any pearls. In fact, no one does, because if they did they’d put them out there to save atheist souls. I don’t know whether you’re lying, trolling, or deluded, but there are no pearls in your toolbox.

          • carolyn

            And lies vs truth, with your degree in Social Science, Degrees (Plural) in Theology, degree in Politics and being an english teacher, no doubt with a teaching qualification, you clearly do know it all.

          • LynnRH

            You’ll have good evidence the day you meet the Lord God face-to-face after your death. Problem is it will be too late for you to repent and be saved. Oh well…..you were warned and had your chance. You just chose to worship yourself. Someday in our after life I’ll ask ”
            how’s that workin for you?”

          • GalapagosPete

            Yes, that would be good evidence–if it were true. Do you have good evidence that it will happen, or do you just take the wholly unsupported word of people who don’t know either?

          • TruthvLIes

            Do you have evidence that it is not true? No I thought not. It was just a thought bubble to keep God out of the system.

          • GalapagosPete

            Since I’m not claiming it isn’t true, only that you have failed to demonstrate that it is, I have no need to provide evidence. I don’t believe because I’ve been given no good evidence *to* believe.

          • TruthvLIes

            Is tautology your speciality?

          • GalapagosPete

            No. But failing to answer direct questions seems to be yours.

          • TruthvLIes

            Sorrry but your little pea brain seems unable to comprehend that I don’t cast pearls before swine so please go pig out somewhere else.

          • carolyn

            What was it you just said to me. Your degrees in Sociology, Politics, Degrees (Pluiral) in Theology, work with homosexuals and your teaching (and presumably teaching qualification) “Stops you from sitting around all the time getting angry at everyone because they don’t agree with you liike someone I know here.” Ooops and here you are getting angry at people you do not agree with, using ad hominem insults. I would have thought that someone who was so educated would be able to come up with an argument without resorting to name calling. You really are the master of projection.

          • GalapagosPete

            The most reasonable explanation is that you don’t have pearls. It’s just that simple. If you had ’em, you’d throw ’em. Period. You got nothing.

          • LynnRH

            Yes, I know for me i’d rather believe than not believe. It makes living this life a lot more enjoyable because I know this isn’t the end. because I believe in God I have something to look forward to after my death. and that gives me joy unspeakable!

          • carolyn

            On other threads I have been arguing with Lies vs Truth (He needs renaming) At different points he claims to have a Social Science Degree, Theology Degrees (Plural) a Politics Degree, worked with Homosexuals, AND be a Trained Teacher. Given that he is SO darn clever, I am sure that if there was any proof he could produce it. Well. Fabricate it at least.

          • GalapagosPete

            I don’t know how smart he actually is, but probably smart enough to know that his evidence would only convince the gullible, so he is not eager to appear foolish by putting it out there.

          • carolyn

            He does not seem to have any problem with making totally irrational statements that any one can see are irrational. I keep asking him does he not mind looking a chump as anyone can read it. There is no proof of God. It relies on faith and I think some of these guys have a real issue understanding the concept of proof!! Didn’t I read that he believes evolution is just a theory . . . . .

        • carolyn

          Oops. Yet again you are asking people to provide proof of things that no one can provide proof of. You do a good line in that.

      • BuckeyePhysicist

        Consider all the variables which connect the earth and sun — or go look at your face in a mirror and ponder the complexity that makes you who you are.

        • james blue

          Okay, so what scientific evidence is that for God?

          • rednecksam

            Since no conclusive evidence is available for the spontaneous formation of life, why ask for a higher standard of evidence for God?
            Spontaneous formation of life is a faith based belief system.

          • james blue

            Not asking for any differing standard,

            The claim was made that the more science and mathematics he studied the more he sees God’s hand in creation. HE claimed the science pointed to it, So I asked what scientific evidence he has based on his claim.

            All he offered was “things are complex”

          • rednecksam

            If you’ve studied this issue you know full well over a dozen Nobel Laureate’s in physics and chemistry are on record the theory of spontaneous life formation is mathematically too complex to happen by chance; in other words “things are complex”, too complex to be considered viable.
            If you have put your faith into this theory you have erred.
            We will never be able to replicate the formation of life or the acts of God, so asking for empirical evidence for a historical event is illogical.
            You must choose which faith based system you believe, God or hopefully something more viable than spontaneous life formation.

          • james blue

            Who has claimed spontaneity?
            How did the creator come to exist?

          • rednecksam

            Above my pay grade.

          • james blue

            Well that’s a dodge.

          • rednecksam

            Man is not all knowing, and if you think we are you are kidding yourself.

          • rednecksam

            One thing we know for sure is historical events are not empirical. Many people on this topic claim empirical science authority for historical science theory.
            Pick your faith based version of history, but don’t claim science as your authority.

          • james blue

            Yet you seem confident enough when it comes to things you disagree with.

          • TruthvLIes

            God is the I am that I am. He who was, and is and wil be.

          • james blue

            It’s handy to have a differing standard to that which you demand of others

          • TruthvLIes

            What a silly reply.

      • ppp777

        Yawn , that old chestnut .

        • james blue

          Well I’m sure as it’s so old you’ll be able to answer it.

          The claim was made that the more science and mathematics he studied the more he sees God’s hand in creation. So I asked what scientific evidence he has.

          • ppp777

            Design and information

          • james blue

            Please explain.

          • ppp777

            Design tells you designer , information tells you there is a mind behind it .

          • james blue

            Okay, but the question I actually asked is what scientific proof as claimed existed is there.

          • ppp777

            The answer I gave you is scientific proof not philosophical , what specifically do you want [ details ] .

          • james blue

            Scientific proof of the existence of God. The best I can make out is you are saying stuff exists so God must, but that’s not scientific. All it proves is that stuff exists, not how it came to be, no matter how “complex” the stuff might be.

          • ppp777

            Oh boy , I repeat myself , all design comes from a designer , all information comes from a mind there is no exception to that rule , there is order in all creation and laws , it can only point to a super intelligence , it all coheres to reality , evolution does the complete opposite , always go where the evidence leads whether it suites your world view or not , anything outside of that is totally unscientific .

          • james blue

            That is FAITH, not science. I didn’t ask what your faith says, I asked what SCIENTIFIC proof you have.

            We cannot prove God exists, we have only faith.

          • ppp777

            It is faith based on plain facts , something that naturalism doesn’t have .

          • TruthvLIes

            it is amazing how little evolutionists know beyond a few trite sayings.

            When you bring God into the discussion of evolution is ceases to be science, it becomes sociology because God is not science.

    • DrIndica

      An actual scientist wouldn’t “support” a hypothesis that cannot be objectively tested. The ” God of the gaps” model is not science.

      • TruthvLIes

        Oh dear, you do live in cloud cuckoo land. The Piltdown man was hailed as the missing link by reputable scientists. Fifty years later it was declared a hoax so where was the objective testing?

        • DrIndica

          Objective science determines faults in previous models.

          • TruthvLIes

            Why did it take 50 years to do some objective testing to ascertain whether it was the missing link which it obviously wasn’t?

            And I didn’t call you dear.

      • ppp777

        So you use ” evolution of the gaps ” instead .

        • DrIndica

          Evolution is a model built on empirically derived observations, your concept of God isn’t.

          • ppp777

            It is built on nothing but imagination , totally — it goes against all known natural laws , it is nothing but a fairy tail .

          • DrIndica

            Yawn

          • ppp777

            Yes go back to sleep .

          • TruthvLIes

            So you say but as satan is the father of lies and could not tell the truth to save his life and he is the author of evolution it is obvious that evolution is not a model built on empirically derived observations.

            It is a plan of Satan to remove God from the creation process and give the glory to man. As they said when they crucified Jesus “We will not have this man to reign over us.” Evolution is nothing more than a statement that we will not have God to reign over us.

          • DrIndica

            O’Reallly? Apparently you know very little about the model of evolution. Creation and evolution aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive unless one reads the Bible as a historically factual document rather than allegories and metaphors as a guide for living.

          • TruthvLIes

            So evolution is a model. I thought evolution was a fact judging by the comments of evolutionists.

            And your comment shows that you know very little about the bible.

          • DrIndica

            A theoretical model is a description based on tests and empirical observations, so yes it is a model.

          • TruthvLIes

            I collect model cars but cannot drive any of them as they are only a model.

          • DrIndica

            In addition to the God you describe, your concept of Satan does not objectively exist

          • TruthvLIes

            As you don’t believe he exists, how do you know whether he objectively exists. Anyone or anything who you believe is not there is not objectively anything.

  • Michael C

    Does everyone get a wikipedia page? Is that a thing?

    Are this man’s scientific accomplishments greater than the millions of scientists who don’t have wikipedia pages?

    I’ve never heard of this guy? What are his contributions to the niche market of “intelligent design”? Has he written a bunch of books or something? Is he, like, a big deal in the “intelligent design” world?

    Can I get a wikipedia page? Is it “censorship” if wikipedia deletes the Michael C page?

    • p78

      Mr Bechly has written dozens of papers has a PhD and is a senior fellow at the German university. So YES he is a big deal in the academic world and is a voice you might want to listen to

      • Michael C

        and is a senior fellow at the German university.

        THE German university?

        No, he’s not.

        …and I’m just saying that maybe he’s really not that big of a deal. Millions of people have PhDs and get published.

        This is a guy who I’m sure is quite bright and obviously well studied. He appears to have had some success curating bug stuff at several museums. Good for him. Maybe he’s just not notable enough to warrant his own wiki page.

        • TruthvLIes

          Judging by the rubbish and lies on Wikipedia, it seems anyone can have a page, fairy tale or not.

      • TruthvLIes

        He could be the most awarded scientist in the world, but they would still invent a silly reason why he should not be on Wikipedia.

      • GalapagosPete

        *Dozens* of papers. Well, good for him. No doubt thousands of scientists have written dozens of papers. And thousands are senior fellows as well. So also good for him. Whether that justifies a Wikipedia page is questionable. As for listening to him…why? He’s positing that life on Earth was created magically. That’s not the sort of person who should be listened to when it comes to science.

        • rednecksam

          No alternate view means no science.

          • GalapagosPete

            Sure, but all “alternate views” are not equally valid, especially when they go against well-established science and offer nothing useful in the way of explanation.

          • rednecksam

            Who knows what is valid if we criticize and ridicule. Theory of relativity had a rough start.
            “Reasons for criticism of the theory of relativity have included
            alternative theories, rejection of the abstract-mathematical method, and
            alleged errors of the theory.”
            Darwinism itself will be gone in our lifetime. Stephen J. Gould started the honest talk of the evidence not matching the theory.

      • DrIndica

        That would be Dr. Bechly to you…if he is so notable, show the proper respect.

    • james blue

      I find it amusing that those who call Wiki “unreliable”, “not fact based” and “biased” are complaining that their guy isn’t on it. Why would they want him on such an unreliable forum?

      • TruthvLIes

        Sorry you can’t work that one out. On such an unreliable site, it is nice to have something that is reliable and true. I have gone to pages that were lies and altered them so that they told the truth. That is another reason.

      • DrIndica

        Wikipedia is not considered an academic or scholarly source. Many of us wicked left wing professors won’t allow students to use Wikipedia as a source of research.

        • james blue

          Who claimed it was?

          • DrIndica

            I don’t think anyone made that specific claim. I was primarily making a comment regarding foks posing the argument that Dr. Bechly should have a Wikipedia page based on scholarly merit he might have.

        • Nick Halflinger

          In my day those mean old professors didn’t allow any encyclopedia. Yet it still remains a quick way to find primary sources to start your research.

      • mr goody two shoes

        Lots of people and stuff is on there I don’t want. I can’t stop people putting their lies about people and subjects on wiki..or censoring good stuff like in this case.

        • james blue

          What are they censoring? He has a page in his home country wikipedia You can look it up

    • TruthvLIes

      “I have never heard of this guy.” I have never heard of you so you must not exist.

    • Florenca Mcdowell

      OH MY ITS MICHAEL THE ATHEIST IDIOT ACTING AS THOUGH HE IS INTELLIGENT

    • Florenca Mcdowell

      YOUR PICTURE IS IN THE DICTIONARY UNDER VILLAGE IDIOT

    • Carolyn

      Doesn’t matter who he is; Wikipedia had no right to delete his page just because they don’t agree with him. It’s called freedom of speech.

      • Michael C

        Wikipedia had no right to delete his page…

        Wikipedia does, in fact, have the right to delete any page from their own website. It’s their website, not Bechly’s.

        In this case, they don’t feel that this individual is noteworthy enough to warrant his own wikipedia page. Lots of scientists don’t have their own wiki pages. Wikipedia doesn’t have to have a page for every person alive. That’s not what Wikipedia is for. That’s what personal websites, facebook, and linkedin are for.

        …just because they don’t agree with him.

        Many notable proponents of creationism have Wikipedia pages. The very organization that Dr. Bechly is associated with has a wiki entry as does BioLogos, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, ICR, etc, etc, etc. This is where your argument falls flat. Why are there so many wiki pages for different creationists and creationist organizations if Wikipedia is supposedly “censoring” creationism?

        It’s called freedom of speech.

        If you think that Dr. Bechly has the “right” to force Wikipedia to publish his personal biography, it’s actually you who seems to hate the First Amendment.

  • Tangent002 ✓

    His German Wikipedia page is there, you just have to translate it.

    • james blue

      it’s a pity this site doesn’t allow links

      • mr goody two shoes

        They don’t but you can suggest websites by other methods.

    • Florenca Mcdowell

      RIGHT ANOTHER FORM OF INTIMADATING BELIEVERS

  • james blue

    Do you hold conservapedia to the same “non censorship” rules?

    • Joseph Robert Dunfe

      An important difference is that Wikipedia does not call itself, “Liberalpedia”. Yet, I have seen many instances where it has shown that it specifically has a bias this way. If such sources wanted to be honest, they would simply announce their own viewpoint, and not pretend that they are somehow able to be completely neutral.

      • james blue

        Examples of this “bias” please

  • MCrow

    Notability is a thing. Wikipedia has servers to maintain, and only so much data can be stored. As has been pointed out, he’s still got a German page, where he doubtless has more notability. There are still plenty of articles for creationists, so crying foul because one scientist no longer has an English page seems silly

    • DrIndica

      Additionally, Wikipedia is not a government entity so removing a page is called an editorial decision, not censorship. However, I’m pretty sure Wikipedia can afford peta-bytes of storage.

      • MCrow

        True enough. And while it does have space, it’s still a cost/benefit thing. Even if it’s only a few cents, they work off donations, so they have an obligation to make sure their information is relevant

        • DrIndica

          Exactly a utilitarian approach…the nerve. Grrr 🙁

        • Florenca Mcdowell

          I WANT TO BE THERE WHEN YOU FIND OUT g YOUR W FATHER OF LIESIN HELL SATAN

          • MCrow

            Feel that Christian love

      • Florenca Mcdowell

        check out WHO DECIDES WHAT IS REAL OR NOT. THEY ARE NOT EXACTLY CONSERVATIVE.

        • DrIndica

          Of course, I’m a secular left leaning intellectual, reality is subjective.

    • Florenca Mcdowell

      Mcrow I think you do protest too much. BTW what is your academic statute. If you don’t believe in God whats the problem in someone else who is superior to your IQ

      • MCrow

        I protest too much? When you cry prejudice when a Wikipedia article is deleted?

        I know many people who have higher IQ than I do. Some believe in God, some do not. So what? If we want that argument, atheists tend to have a higher IQ than the religious. That’s not an absolute indication, however.

        I don’t care if you believe that the world was created last Thursday, but this article was simply not notable. Again, still up on the German page, where I assume he has more influence. But had you even heard of this man before reading this news? I doubt it

  • Lydia Church

    True science proves the truth of the Bible.
    Sadly the discrimination against Christians continues…

    • GalapagosPete

      Yes, it’s certainly must be terrible to be part of a persecuted minority group, you poor, poor Christian. Down to only 70% or so, are we? Sad.

      True science *ignores* the bible, it’s just triggered Christians who are offended that their automatically-assumed privilege is being denied.

      • DrIndica

        Somehow a persecution complex provides a sense of self-righteous legitimacy.

        • GalapagosPete

          Apparently the “moderator” of this site doesn’t like ti when someone points out that the claims of Christians of being persecuted ring hollow when you take into consideration that something like 70% of people in the US still identify as Christian.

          Modern Christians claim persecution when they are told they cannot place religious statues on tax-supported property, or cannot have their religion taught in tax-supported schools. This is utter nonsense.

    • LynnRH

      No worries…….as the Bible says…..God will have the final word! Yipeeeee! I can’t wait! Please Lord hurry back! This world just can’t get any uglier than it is now!

  • Skeptic NY

    Seems like the poor sensitive ID loons have had their feelings hurt again.

  • mr goody two shoes

    Wikipedia will censure you if you go against what is popular to think. Its not the most reliable source. Its popular opinion.

    • DrIndica

      Wikipedia does not censure anyone, they don’t censor either. They are simply making editorial decisions.

      • TruthvLIes

        Ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha hha ha ha, next thing you wil be telling us that facebook doesn’t censure.

        • DrIndica

          Censure?? Buy a dictionary Einstein.

  • Gordon Whittet

    just another poke in GOD’s eye….before our destruction, whlle God watches and waits for our national repentance.

  • Carolyn

    What Wikipedia did is 100% censorship and against our constitutional rights to freedom of speech. Who made them God with the authority to determine what the public has access to read or watch??? They are NOT dictators of this country and have no right to delete anyone’s blog on their website or anywhere else. This act just shows how damning this country has become when people like that defend all these anti-religious groups and support their blogs, but take it upon themselves to delete something that does not agree with their agenda. These dictators should be arrested for obstructing justice against the constitution and the path for us to access everyone’s opinion, whether it is true or not. I will no longer support anything Wikipedia says or does because they are no longer trust-worthy and have betrayed my confidence in anything they have to say. They no longer have any credibility in any sense of the word.

  • . . . a respected scientist who believes that God created the universe with a purpose . . .

    Religious bias is not allowed in science research, which is why it is objective. A “scientist” whose hypotheses (ID) cannot meet the requirements of the scientific method, is not an objective scientist.

    Sorry folks, but his page should only be allowed if he were to have stated up front that his belief is his opinion and that it has not met the requirements of the scientific method in order to make it a valid scientific theory, which requires independent verification. In other words, the page was a subjective opinion piece. But I don’t think Wikipedia allows commentary. It is a site that is supposed to promote facts.

    • TruthvLIes

      If it is a site that promote facts, then it has to delete every article about evolution which is totally based on opinion as I have already seen at least a dozen guesses as to how old the earth this.