Stan compared my presentation of the Singer-Connolley conflict in terms of "creationists". I hope what he meant by 'creationists' was "advocates of creation science" - a subset of the larger group of Creationists. Creationists believe that God created (a) the universe (b) all living things and (c) human beings: their view is called Creationism. Some creationists espouse a POV they call "creation science", which ASSERTS THAT creationism is compatible with (or even supported by) geology and biology. The former view, creationism, is beyond debate: it's just something a lot of religious folks believe. Wikipedia isn't going to say they're wrong, no matter how many of us are atheists. The latter view, so-called "creation science", is highly controversial: a lot of creationists believe it, but most scientists do not. The Wikipedia article says (or should say): * Most scientists dismiss "creation science" as [[pseudoscience]] (I think I wrote that line myself!) The conflict over environmentalist ideas -- like (1) CFC damage to the ozone layer leads to human skin cancer or (2) CO2 emissions make the atmosphere heat up too much -- is not parallel to "creationism" vs. evolution but rather to "creation science" vs. evolution. However, there is nothing about Singer's views that is like so-called "creation science". He's not dressing up his faith in scientific clothes: he's reporting genuine dissent WITHIN the scientific community. Scientists like MIT's Richard Lindzen (an IPCC leader!) and Harvared's Sallie Baliunas DISAGREE with other scientists. All I'm saying is that the controversy should be REPORTED in Wikipedia articles. Uncle Ed