<p>Regarding Creation Wiki:</p>
<p>In terms of academic merit, I thoroughly abhor that website, as should any individual seeking factual information. It largely contains nothing more than an irritating assortment of blatant religious propaganda, misleading assertions, fundamentalist Christian bias and other religious prejudice, subtle scientific conceptual misunderstandings, egregious misconceptions over the nature of science, inappropriate conflations, religious contentions dressed up as science, references to revelation, erroneous conclusions, use of obsolete or invalidated data, inexpert or minority viewpoints, deceptive use of scientific terminology, exclusion of opposing lines of evidence, galling straw man arguments, and other fraudulent and argumentatively insolvent creationist tactics.</p>
<p>In other words, it’s designed as nothing more than another means of propagating the ancient, tenacious tales, distortions, and biases motivated by a strict reading of Genesis. </p>
<p>Also, the site strives for a “peer-reviewed” accumulation of creationist knowledge, which is a blatant lie, given that creationism shamelessly fails academic peer review under systematic inquiry. Accordingly, the nature of the site is inherently restricted, with contributions from a small cluster of conservative know-nothings. Moreover, CreationWiki is fundamentally discriminatory. Non-supportive members of conservative Christian opinions are excluded in order to preserve the dogmatic convictions of creationist thought. It is, however, a valuable reference for anyone interested in viewing common biblical literalism arguments. But oftentimes, it’s nothing more than a source of intense irritation.</p>
<hr>
<p>Also, who cannot help but be annoyed by these contentions from the “Humanism” page?</p>
<p>“Both sex education in schools and the homosexual movement are designed to destroy Christian morality.”</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>*“In 1964, The Humanist magazine states that ‘Darwin’s discovery of the principle of evolution sounded the death knell of religious and moral values. It removed the ground under the feet of tradition religion.’”<a href=“For%20anyone%20even%20remotely%20privy,%20it%20is%20quite%20obvious%20that%20this%20quotation%20was%20flagrantly%20spun%20out%20of%20context.”>/i</a></p>
<p>***</p>
<p>*“Humanism is arguably the oldest religion in the world, although many modern humanists attempt to deny the fact. Their religious status is not contested on philosophical grounds, but is almost certainly due to other motivations, such as avoiding separation of Church and state restrictions and perhaps for fear of awakenings the Christian masses to their demoralizing influence.”<a href=“Underlined%20portion%20is%20my%20emphasis%20on%20a%20crassly%20bigoted%20assertion.”>/i</a></p>
<p>***</p>
<p>“However, in recent years, many have begun to claim that Humanism is not a religion, and instead refer to their belief system as “Scientific humanism”…This is explained by some as the maturation of their belief system, and by others as a desire to downplay the obvious religious nature of their beliefs and instead portray themselves as “objective” and “scientific”. The ultimate purpose can be seen as two fold - to distance themselves from theistic groups and circumvent restriction imposed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution…By allowing their position to be redefined, humanism has been allowed to reap the protections of the Establishment Clause by preventing evangelism by other religions while themselves being able to promote religious secular humanism in schools through evolutionism.”</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>For more displays of the website’s ignorant discourse, I would recommend viewing the “Evolution” page. Also, on the “Atheism” entry, perhaps the most irritating claim was that atheism is/was responsible for “Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Leninist-Stalinist Russia, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Vietnam, and North Korea, among others are never going to be fully known” and that the historical atrocities committed in the names of these campaigns directly proceed from Neo-Darwinism. Even if this were true, it neglects the fact that scientific understandings are entirely independent of their philosophical implications.</p>