Why was "most" changed to "many"? I can think of no reason for that change. Is it not the case that most scientists reject "scientific creationism" as unscientific? If so, then the word should be "most". -- Egern
It was changed in:
- While many Christians and about 99.9% of scientists accept the theory of evolution and natural selection as the most likely explanation of speciation, most -> many nonscientists do not.
--Taw
Oh, never mind. I misread the change. My mistake. -- Egern
Y'know, the words "about 99.9% of biologists" are interesting. I doubt the person who wrote this is familiar with a survey that found that precisely 99.9% of biologists believe this. For all I know, it's 99.999%, or 97.6%. Everybody knows, in any case, that it's a very high percentage. If we don't know that the 99.9% figure, precisely, is correct, then why are we using it? --LMS
The creationism article contains this quote:
- In 1987, Newsweek? said: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation science...". Among scientists who work in the field, therefore, only about 0.14% hold the creationist view
That would make Newsweek's estimate 99.86%. I agree, though, that even if the number is accurate, it sounds like just a rhetorical flourish for "nearly all", and in any case, such numbers ought to be attributed as this one is in the other article. --LDC
Yep, here's where a more precise number and a citation of a study would come in handy. --LMS
Why do both creation science and scientific creationism exist? The names mean the same thing, right? --LMS
Who knows? F. Lee Horn
- You're right, Larry. Perhaps one should REDIRECT to the other. I hereby authorize you; feel the empowerment!! Ed Poor
I was waiting for someone who knows and cares enough to do it. :-) --LMS
The teaching of religions at public schools is prohibited in the United States.
This sentence says that students cannot be taught about religion in public schools. Is this true? My understanding is that American public schools simply cannot teach from the perspective of a particular religion. --STG
- Well, this must be subjective. I understand the sentence to mean exactly what STG thinks the sentence should mean -- i.e. that schools can teach "about" religions and religion, but cannot teach students to be religious or to adhere to any particular religion. That's just what I think the "of" means. SR
It is certainly legal for American public schools to teach their students about religion. However, it is strictly forbidden by the Constitution of the US to teach children religion; the small difference is phrasing masks a tremendous difference in meaning. Teaching students about religion merely means that teachers can talk about the existence of various religions, and mention their beliefs and practices that have to do with the issue being studied by the class. Teaching students religion itself, however, would mean indoctrinating the students in one particular faith. American schools can and do have courses in Human Sexuality that mentions the Jewish, Christian and Islamic views of abortion and birth control. American schools may not, however, use their schools to teach their students to become Jewish (or Christian, or Muslim, etc.) RK
Just by way of clarification, the prohibition against teaching a *particular* religion applies only to schools which are financially supported by public revenue. F. Lee Horn
Removed for the moment:
- The National Center for Science Education http://www.ncseweb.org is an excellent resource for learning about and helping to fight against creationism.
This sounds like advocacy. We need to rewrite the context for this and, preferably, add a link to a major creationist site as well. --Robert Merkel
Taken from the article:
Some arguments proposed by creationists are:
- That there are structures in species, such as the woodpecker's hyoid and the eyes of Strepsiptera, that could not have developed gradually.
- That rock strata have in some places apparently been laid down out of order.
- That the existence of strata and fossils suggest that they were laid down catastrophically.
- That the speed of light has changed over time, thus changing the speed of radioactive decay. (Since both the meter and the second are defined in terms of light waves, this would then make no sense.)
- That radioactive dates may be thought unreliable if they assume that certain isotopes were not present in the rock when formed.
- That while a few thousands of years elapsed on earth, millions of years may have elapsed in the wider universe. (This argument is based on a non-standard interpretation of the theory of general relativity.)
Until a list of counter-arguments to the above is made (by whichever side), this list is inherently POV since it only presents one side of the argument. --mav