Безопасен ли evolutionnews.org?

This site offers a refreshing challenge to the poorly justified premises presented as fact at university. Not impressed with (and not surprised by) the one-star reviews. Even the one that claimed to investigate how the site deals with Neil Degrasse Tyson--they have a lot to say about his Cosmos program and their concerns do NOT hinge on how Tyson pronounces "fate." "Unsafe"? It's a poison-the-well campaign. Sad.

This website is misleading and unethical, as the information provided by this website is incorrect and should not be relied upon for anyone hoping to pass a biology class or hope to pick up some interesting information. There is not a debate about the validity of evolution vs intelligent design. Evolution is a well supported scientific theory, while intelligent design is little more than putting a labcoat on the statement "That looks designed to me, must have been God." The organization that runs this website is just a dishonest smoke and mirrors con artist game to slip creationism into education through a back door, pretending it isn't actually based in religion. That dishonesty is highly unethical, and should be offensive to religious people. If you have to lie to support your religion, you aren't doing it any favors. It also influences people to treat science as unreliable, and I think we can look at ***** and recognize that being ignorant of science and treating science as something that has to be viewed through a political lens is a bad thing. Coronavirus variants? Evolution in action.

There's nothing unsafe about this website. It's being targeted by militant atheists who want to suppress religious perspectives. This site doesn't actually advance religious views, but these atheists don't like anything that shows that science is compatible with religion.

Great site that offers an alternative theory of the origin of the universe and mankind by using scientific observation and interpretation. It does not ignore evidence that proves your worldview is untrue and unsupportable, as does evolution. It is fair and well written. It appears many reviews are not based on the trustworthiness of the site or the truth of the articles, but on unjustly attacking the credibility of the site so people will not question the unsupportable ideas put forward as fact, but is not true science, by evolutionists who are afraid of an honest examination of their claims.

I noticed many people gave this site negative reviews because they disagreed with the authors of the articles it posts. This website is entirely safe - there are not any risks concerning viruses or malware. This site cites primary literature and directly quotes scientists and those involved in the issues discussed. You can disagree with the authors' arguments, but don't call it "unsafe". Please leave your religious (or anti-religious) biases out of your safety ratings.

People are rating this site poorly because they disagree with it, which is a misuse of WOT. I may not agree with Stephen Hawking either, but I'm not going to sites that quote him and tagging them as dangerous. WOT should be used for serious issues, not disagreements. This is a perfectly fine site.

The people giving this site a bad rating are using the Web of Trust service as a way to attack a world view that is contrary to their own. I wish that Web of Trust would fix this problem. Your service is being used illegitimately. This service is not supposed to be a way of advancing a political or cultural agenda. Those that are leaving comments casting doubts on the trustworthiness of the website use as their criteria a world view dis-qualifier. Seeing that a sizable portion of the population still adheres to the Christian world view, simply having a website which goes about the business of exploring that world view through the pursuit of information theory and other legitimate forms of inquiry is NOT a danger to anyone.

This is definitely a good site. The negative reviews are by by angry, unethical people who merely disagree with the opinions expressed on the website. Just because someone has a different view on a subject doesn't mean the view is not trustworthy. Grow up ... quit being so juvenile!

The views expressed in this site are perfectly scientific. Merely because their findings have theistic ramifications does not disqualify them as unscientific. Science is not meant to prove the non-existence of God but to study the evidence and impartially go where the evidence leads. To have a strong atheistic bias is contrary to the spirit of pure inquiry into truth. Preconceived notions are built on pride and can only mislead one from the truth. So if the findings of modern biology suggest a powerful intelligent cause for the workings of nature there is no need to balk from the conclusions on the basis of inherent atheistic bias.

This site reviews and writes peer reviewed articles. The reason for the untrustworthy rating is angry atheists can't stand anyone questioning their faith in evolution. If evolution is not questioned it is not science. This site is completely void of religion. Obviously most people rating it have never read anything on it. To say this site is misleading or unethical is misleading and unethical.