Talk:Gov. Bobby Jindal supports creationism as part of ‘the very best science’

Neutrality

This article reports on a statement made by Jindal in an interview and then it seems to go on the attack with language like this is not the first time and listing court cases etc. why he is wrong and topping it of with this unsourced statement: In contrast, the scientific community considers creationism, including intelligent design, to be pseudoscience. Whereas, evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as the foundation for modern biology. Hardly in keeping with NPOV. --SVTCobra 22:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote is available from a variety of sources. Such as, this sympathetic one.

As for NPOV, creationism is NOT science. There is no validity to it or a flat Earth. There is a source for the statement it links to List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design. You can also see Evidence of common descent or Level of support for evolution. You can't be "NPOV" with evolution denial, Holocaust denial, or AIDS denial because they are fringe beliefs (view Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience). Shown2233361 (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just added two quotes from the United States National Academy of Sciences' statement on creationism as well. Shown2233361 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You just added more unsourced information, and there is still nothing in the Sources section. All information must be sourced per WN:CS. Also, this is not Wikipedia, so the results of votes there do not apply here. I do not believe in ID, but that doesn't mean I won't uphold WN:NPOV. The article, in my opinion, remains biased against Jindal. --SVTCobra 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Under sources, I added: "Science and Creationism". United States National Academy of Sciences, 2008, which are where the two statements came from. Did you miss that addition? Example:

The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes.[1]

Science doesn't consider creationism valid per the NAS source and intelligent design was ruled to be creationism in court per the Dover source. Shown2233361 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Science doesn't consider any religion valid. Wikinews is a news site. We should report that he said this. We should also report what people said in response. What Wikinews should not do is to begin to attack someone for what they said. If we had a story on the Pope, should we begin to list all the lack of evidence for a god? If we have an article about China and Tibet, should we lecture the readers that the Dalai Lama cannot be an incarnation of Tulku because science says it is not possible. I think not. --SVTCobra 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not an attack nor is it about religion. He supports something that the scientific community discounts and the courts have ruled against. Considering he is close to signing a law similiar to one drafted by the ID community it has importance. That is what the article reports. As for responses: Jindal's genetics professor speaks out.Shown2233361 (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the argument was that ID amounts to creationism and thus religion. Further it is perfectly fine to mention that he is about to sign a law, similiar to one that was struck down in federal court and link to it. It is not OK to dedicate the majority of the article cover this case. --SVTCobra 00:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (meaning the Kitzmiller/Dover case)

Its not about religion. As his comments and the title reveal, he considers ID/creationism to be science. That it is not science (as noted by Dover and the NAS) is important context that gives meaning to his statements in pending legislation. That a federal court has ruled ID = creationism and the scientific community considers creationism = not science is important to any discussion about ID and science education.

Also that he wants ID/creationism taught in schools when the Dover judge ruled against that is equally important to the article.

I trimmed the Dover part back per your comments. Shown2233361 (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the trimming, Shown2233361. I still disagree with you that it is Wikinews' job to debate or "truth-find" statements made by politicians or other public figures. It is simply our job to report what they said. We don't debate the newsmakers, we report on it. That is a huge distinction between Wikipedia and Wikinews. --SVTCobra 00:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

At the bottom, it states that Gov. Jindal is a possible choice to be John McCain's vice president. This statement should be changed to past tense or removed entirely. Alx xlA (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If you check the date on this article, it was accurate at the time. After about 24 hours no new information is added, see WN:ARCHIVE. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)