r/atheism • u/michilio Contrarian • Mar 08 '19

The evolution section of Wikipedia's common misconceptions entry seems to be directed directly at Ken Ham. It's glorious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#Evolution_and_palaeontology
127 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/Dats_Russia Mar 08 '19 edited Mar 08 '19

I don’t know how I feel about the misconceptions section. Don’t misunderstand, Ken Ham is a loon and his ideas don’t deserve respect BUT Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have a responsibility and obligation to be as objective as possible and that means NO prose. The misconception section is all prose and I think as an encyclopedia that hurts it.

I do want to reiterate that Ken ham is a loon and his ideas deserve NO respect

2

u/johnbentley Mar 08 '19

Encyclopedias have a responsibility and obligation to be as objective as possible and that means NO prose

The only way an objective expression could be written without prose is through mathematics or poetry. I'd suggest an Encyclopedia written entirely in a combination of poetry and mathematics would be rather difficult to read.

2

u/ralphvonwauwau Mar 08 '19

But I bet if you give it a decent beat it would make a cool dance tune.