"

1) I didn't say ""one short sentence would be appropriate"", I said ""so a small sentence on it is relevant"".
 2) I accept that this point is correct, however, the article mentions that ""Creationist beliefs may be based on creationist theology, creation science, or a combination of both"" therefore making this criticism completely relevant to the article. Equally, the further criticism of 'creation science' could be applied more widely to creationism as a whole. I am referring here to the sentence, ""Science uses the scientific method to systematically comprehend reality as it is, whereas 'creation science' begins with an assumption and attempts to find evidence or twist facts to support this original assumption.""
3 )It is more a critical approach towards creationism, rather than simply 'creation science' that I am advocating. This article is misleading in that it appears to add totally equal merit to both creationism and evolution. While this may appear to be in the interests of NPOV, the reality is that the actual evidence for evolution is so hugely overwhelming, that to give an impression of equal validity is itself a bias point. Sorry, but the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, creationism is a pseudo-science of no real merit, and this should be quite clear in the article. I accept that an argument putting forward the 'credentials' of creationism is fair and should be included, but the argument against it should not be tamed in to give the ostensible appearance of neutrality.  17:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)"