Block, SkipCaptcha
195
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: +
But he did denounce
::: The timing suggests the evolution criticism was the main reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::: The timing suggests the evolution criticism was the main reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::Why would good scientists not denounce something that needs denouncing? "Exposing" embodies the conclusion that it ''was'' a fraud when many who would know more about it than Hoyle did have disputed/denied that fact. We should report facts, not present our own conclusions. Hoyle was brilliant, but he was plain wrong on several counts. Do not forget that he was an atheistic scientist for some time, so he was quite capable of interpreting evidence to arrive at the wrong conclusion. I don't want to put "claimed" as that embodies the negative conclusion to some degree. "Denounced" is what he did; he named it false. I will continue to look for a word that is more satisfactory to all.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 09:54, 15 January 2009 (EST)
== Reversion explained ==
== Reversion explained ==