[Home]History of WikiProject/Origin of life and related debates

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 8 . . (edit) December 1, 2001 9:15 am by Ed Poor
Revision 7 . . December 1, 2001 9:14 am by Ed Poor
Revision 6 . . December 1, 2001 9:01 am by ManningBartlett
Revision 5 . . December 1, 2001 8:54 am by ManningBartlett [clarification - a major misunderstanding occurred here I think]
Revision 4 . . December 1, 2001 8:39 am by RK
Revision 3 . . (edit) December 1, 2001 8:28 am by ManningBartlett [addition to proposal]
Revision 2 . . December 1, 2001 8:17 am by ManningBartlett [proposal]
Revision 1 . . December 1, 2001 8:15 am by ManningBartlett [proposal]
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (minor diff)

Changed: 24c24,27
To reiterate: the statement "evolution is a scientific proven fact" means that the idea holds dominion within the realm of science. There are, however, a substantial number of people who hold that "science does not explain the world, or why it exists". Byt substantial I mean millions of average citizens, and not a few scientologists. This may horrify us, we may regard them as ignorant, but you cannot make someone accept that "science is the best explanation for why the universe/world/ whatever is the way it is", if they don't want to.
To reiterate: the statement "evolution is a scientific proven fact" means that the idea holds dominion within the realm of science. There are, however, a substantial number of people who hold that "science does not explain the world, or why it exists".
:There are even some scientists who question some of the evidence given for evolution, such as photographs of Pepper Moths resting on tree trunks -- staged, because the only light on the underside of leaves. Or drawings of embryos, a deliberate hoax. Note that I am not asserting these objections here (I'll do it elsewhere, next week maybe) but pointing out that there may be debate within the scientific community according to its own rules about the merits of the evidence supporting a particular hypothesis. If you've studied anything about the history of science, you find that the process is not an unbroken string of success. There have been several major retractions. Hmm, I guess that should go under the [History of Science]?. Anyway, I'm glad there's some room for debate on Wiki. Maybe, it's my role to stimulate and (I hope) summarize the debates. Whatever you do, don't put Flat Earth into each and every astronomy article -- I'd go to the ends of the earth to get away from that (pun intended). --Ed Poor

By substantial I mean millions of average citizens, and not a few scientologists. This may horrify us, we may regard them as ignorant, but you cannot make someone accept that "science is the best explanation for why the universe/world/ whatever is the way it is", if they don't want to.

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: