Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: + + + + + + + +
cut from the article
I broke the existing entry into two paragraphs, and added mention of Scientific Laws. Sources still need to be cited (specifically for the first statement. Would the person who wrote the original article cite that?). [[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (CST)
I broke the existing entry into two paragraphs, and added mention of Scientific Laws. Sources still need to be cited (specifically for the first statement. Would the person who wrote the original article cite that?). [[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (CST)
==Advocacy==
Cut:
:The concept of scientific theory has come under fire from fundamentalist christins who don't accept the theory of evolution. The reacurring argument is that "it's not fact. It's only a theory" but as shown here in a scientific theory is something that is supported by fact. It's a verified hypothesis and thus in science theory and fact don't stand in opposit.
This is not encyclopedic, it's not even spelled right. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)