nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 68:
Line 68: + +
→Removal of quotes: Clarification as requested.
: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)
: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)
:: There is no ''Christians and Science'' article, but I'm happy for the first quote to be left out of this article, for now at least. The second quote did indeed state that the basis of science was an orderly universe. It did ''not'' say that this was proof of a Creator. You will note some discussion above about the multiplicity of science articles; I think that [[natural science]] should be merged back into this one. It has more on this issue of the basis of science. But the quote ''did'' talk about the basis of science: without the basis, derived from the Bible, of believing that the universe was orderly, science as we know it would not have come into existence.
:: Also, although I agree that an article should not comprise only or primarily quotes, it is quite useful and appropriate to include quotes, and this one is worth including, I believe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:41, 26 March 2008 (EDT)