4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 535:
Line 535: + + + + + + +
→Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron
:Now, if a high-stature organization like the AAAS or the NAS, which can be said to represent "science" in the U. S., has actually made any official statements to the effect that "creationism is not science" then a stronger qualification would be appropriate... like putting "creation scientist" in quotation marks and footnoting that thus-and-such organization says there is no such thing... but I doubt the AAAS or NAS has made any such statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Now, if a high-stature organization like the AAAS or the NAS, which can be said to represent "science" in the U. S., has actually made any official statements to the effect that "creationism is not science" then a stronger qualification would be appropriate... like putting "creation scientist" in quotation marks and footnoting that thus-and-such organization says there is no such thing... but I doubt the AAAS or NAS has made any such statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Guess what? The AAAS ''has'' said something relevant: [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml AAAS Board Resolution
on Intelligent Design Theory]:
::Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
::Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
::Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education...
: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)