Wikipedia commentary/PV of a Science of Nature editor

Some wikipedians think that scientific articles on Wikipedia should be writted accoding to "Point of View of a Science or Nature editor", and not strict "Neutral Point Of View". Both these points of view are biased. PVSNE is biased towards science and facts?, SNPOV is biased towards political neutrality? and political correctness.

Scientific articles make big portion of every encyclopedia. If "strict" rules of NeutralPointOfView were followed, such articles would be very hard to use. Most people reading article Earth don't care about people claiming it's flat, most people reading about World War II don't care about it being punishment for sins of humanity and most people reading article Evolution don't care about creationism, "humanity was created by aliens" and other non-scientific theories. Therefore NeutralPointOfView must be limited if it conflicts with usability? or facts?.

---

Maybe controversial issues should have a front page listing the pages that describe the different points of view that exist about them, science being among them. Even within science there sometimes are competing theories about certain phenomena.

So we could have: Origin of life theory

• Science: Evolution
• Religion: Creationism

what do you think?

I think this POV has been discussed to death on creationism/talk? and that a strictly biased POV should not become wikipedia pollicy. I for one would consider forking the pedia, to create an effort which accommodates various POV, before I'd let this happen.