Hi! Thanks for stopping by. I am a college freshman in the Central Time Zone of the United States. Wikipedia is an incredible idea that only works in practice, not in theory [1] — that is why I do my best to make Wikipedia a better resource as much as I can.
As you might have guessed from my editor name, I tend to rely heavily on the Bible regarding issues of faith, mostly because my experience on the subject has shown it to be quite reliable. Surprisingly, however, this puts me at odds with other editors much less than my editor name does, since editors often (understandably) assume that I am a POV-pushing religious fanatic. Nothing could be further than the truth. I understand the five pillars — I've had them hammered into my head plenty of times — and when I am editing a controversial or heated article, I strive to make my edits reflect a neutral point of view on the subject rather than stating my own opinions as fact. See below.
If you believe me to be irrational, lunatic, mad, idiotic, or otherwise crazy for holding the beliefs or positions that I hold, that's fine. I don't mind. But before you address me using those adjectives or use your belief about me to judge my usefulness as an editor, please take a look at this simple explanation and then decide whether I might possibly have something to contribute. It won't hurt; I'm not going to try and convert you. You'll just find out what I believe and why.
My Wikipedia Philosophy
I am a big fan of the ((fact)) tag. It isn't always necessary, but it can usually help. It doesn't always mean that the person using it thinks the statement referenced should be removed; just that it should be better cited.
As far as additions to Wikipedia articles go, I feel that if a statement is verifiable, decent, relevant, and reflects a neutral point of view, then go ahead and post it! Just remember: when in doubt, cite! If you can come up with a reliable citation for something, then it is fine to state it as long as you state it as the position of the people you are citing, not as absolute fact.
Contributions
I'm presently working on trying to shape up the rather dysfunctional Churches of Christ page, mostly using a rewrite page that I created. And no, I'm not Church of Christ myself.
I also swing in occasionally to fix bias problems in religious or scientific articles (always keeping my contributions NPOV, of course) or just grammar-surfing. I don't like bad grammar. I don't like putting "apart" in the place of "a part". At all. So I tend to surf around looking for grammar problems to correct.
Why I Believe Such Crazy Things
Like I've said before, I often get labeled a lunatic for holding the following positions:
That the universe's appearance is consistent with a cosmological origin under 0.01 MYA, which falls into line with a supernatural force being the primary formative element for the cosmos
That the same supernatural force is responsible for the genesis of life on Earth, in contrast to prevailing scientific belief in abiogenesis
That supernatural force still exists, possesses intelligence, and is still active in the affairs of civilization (although physical laws have remained the same since their inception at the creation of the cosmos)
That this God performed the actions of creation for His benefit and credit, and that human beings exist as part of this purpose.
That in accordance with this purpose and plan, God justly destroyed the largest portion of rebellious, hate-filled humanity in a global flood that was derivatively responsible for the formation of much of the geological deposits visible today, but that He preserved the earth's creatures and the human race by giving instructions for the building of a massive wooden barge that survived the floodwaters and provided a sanctuary for the creatures inside
That God provided a way for rebellious humanity to be relieved of their debt to justice in the life, death, and supernatural resurrection of Jesus, Messiah
That if a human persists throughout their natural life in indulging their love of themselves and hatred for God (both of which are exhibited by the person violating the laws which God places in every conscience), they deserve to be judged by God after death
That if a human sacrifices their pride and acknowledges the position that God holds above them, that the judgment placed by God on Jesus is credited to them and they are relieved of their debt to justice
That God explained all these things and more in the Bible, which He inspired men to write; and that it is, in its original autographs, His infallible Word
I think that is all of the things people generally call me crazy over. It's perfectly understandable, especially if they only see one or two of the positions. It's especially understandable when the article that I'm trying to contribute to has been the subject of many POV-pushing attempts by anonymous editors who hold similar positions.
The reason I hold those positions (along with believing the theory of Evolution to be seriously flawed), though, is simple. I am also pretty sure that it is reasonably reasonable.
I have not yet found enough evidence to convince me by the preponderance of evidence that the Bible is wrong. I have seen many, many things that point to the Bible being right (archeological finds, fulfilled prophecy, evidences of a young earth, manuscript evidence, corroborating legends, historical facts, and the Bible's internal consistency/purpose, to name a few), and the things that deprecate the Bible's historical authenticity aren't very convincing. Hearing that there might be a way for information density in a genome to increase, thus creating a possible mechanism for universal common descent, does little to immediately overturn the massive evidence for the Bible's veracity.
If I was to find out that Jerusalem was not a real place, that crucifixion was not invented until the third century, that the Dead Sea Scrolls were a fabrication, that there is not enough water in the oceans to cover the earth if the mountains were leveled, and that there are no flood legends from anywhere in the world except the Hebrew Scriptures, then the strength of my position of belief in the Bible might possibly begin to waver significantly. Until I am confronted with a preponderance of evidence showing the Bible to be fallible and the contrary evidence to be flawed, I cannot but believe that the Bible is true. In the (traditionally cited) words of Martin Luther, "Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders.".
Call me a lunatic if you wish. But hopefully you have been convinced that I can make good contributions to Wikipedia despite my lunacy.
My Scientific Problems with Evolution
There are two parts of evolutionary theory (both that I disagree with); first that gene duplication and polyploidy (mutations) can increase the usable information in the genome, causing new traits to appear in organisms, and second that this "process" was responsible for the vast diversity of life on earth. The second part is highly questionable even if the first is true; evolution (as accepted by the majority of scientists) is a very random process that only takes place under certain circumstances (environmental stress, reproduction rates, and the like). Since significant evolutionary progress taking place under any given circumstances is not guaranteed, it is quite speculative to state affirmatively that all the diversity of life results from evolution in the past.
Since no random gene duplication or polyploidy has been seen to actually increase the usable information in the genome or cause new traits to appear, the first part is highly speculative as well.
Obviously, these views are not held by the majority of editors here on Wikipedia. But that doesn't matter; evolution and related biological processes can be discussed and described neutrally regardless of whether (or how often) they actually happen. When there is an actual issue of fact (whether there is, for example, an observed instance of genetic information increase in a given case), I just encourage appropriate citation so that readers can see for themselves.
