Delirium-
Perhaps you meant "biased in the direction of stupidity" but mistyped? The current articles expound on a view that only MDs with no philosophical sophistication hold, because they simply make no sense. If you pick up any book on the philosophy of mind, or read a philosophy journal on the subject, you'll see these views of the mind/body problem not even being discussed, because they're too ridiculous to merit serious consideration.
I view philosophy as a sort of protoscience between religion and science, but that doesn't really belong on this list. This, however, does:
And who makes the decision that the creationists' claims are inferior to the biologists' claims?
Nobody. However, we do recognize the reality of the situation that virtually all modern universities teach evolutionary biology, not the creationist equivalent. Among trained biologists, creationism is virtually non-existent. Hence, our articles on biology adopt the dominant view of those highly educated in the field.
I strongly suspect, however, that sooner or later all articles on biology will end up with a "creationist disclaimer". That would seal Wikipedia's fate as a serious encyclopedia.
Now, reasonable people can differ on whether an article such as [[human]] deserves to be treated as a strictly biological topic. In general, however, the creationist claims are discussed at length in the articles on [[creationism]], and that is where they belong.
What if there are distinct scientific and philosophical traditions, and they conflict?
That happens a lot - that's why they're distinct in the first place. Our job is to document these differences in a reasonable and consolidated manner without having them spill over into unrelated articles.
Regards,
Erik