333
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 66:
Line 66: + +
no edit summary
TheGySom removed a couple of quotes with the edit comment ''Since articles are not collections of quotes, a start'', and I agree that articles should be more than a collection of quotes. However, in doing so, he's removed the points that the quotes were making. This I ''don't'' agree with. Further, the replacement "basis of science" section is talking about its ''principles'', not the ''basis'' for it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
TheGySom removed a couple of quotes with the edit comment ''Since articles are not collections of quotes, a start'', and I agree that articles should be more than a collection of quotes. However, in doing so, he's removed the points that the quotes were making. This I ''don't'' agree with. Further, the replacement "basis of science" section is talking about its ''principles'', not the ''basis'' for it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
:Could you please clarify a little. I removed the first quote because it belongs in the Christians and Science article, not this one. The second quote seemed to state that the basis of science was an orderly universe, and that this was proof of a Creator. This doesn't really talk about the basis or need for science, although I will admit that I was incorrect in replacing it with the principles of science. How about renaming the section "Principles of Science", and we can try creating a "Basis of Science" section without relying on quotes? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:10, 25 March 2008 (EDT)