Talk:Scientific creationism: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Larry_Sanger (talk) No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Oh, never mind. I misread the change. My mistake. -- Egern |
Oh, never mind. I misread the change. My mistake. -- Egern |
||
---- |
|||
Y'know, the words "about 99.9% of biologists" are interesting. I doubt the person who wrote this is familiar with a survey that found that precisely 99.9% of biologists believe this. For all I know, it's 99.999%, or 97.6%. Everybody knows, in any case, that it's a ''very'' high percentage. If we don't know that the 99.9% figure, precisely, is correct, then why are we using it? --[[LMS]] |
|||
Revision as of 23:45, 27 December 2001
Why was "most" changed to "many"? I can think of no reason for that change. Is it not the case that most scientists reject "scientific creationism" as unscientific? If so, then the word should be "most". -- Egern
It was changed in:
- While many Christians and about 99.9% of scientists accept the theory of evolution and natural selection as the most likely explanation of speciation, most -> many nonscientists do not.
--Taw
Oh, never mind. I misread the change. My mistake. -- Egern
Y'know, the words "about 99.9% of biologists" are interesting. I doubt the person who wrote this is familiar with a survey that found that precisely 99.9% of biologists believe this. For all I know, it's 99.999%, or 97.6%. Everybody knows, in any case, that it's a very high percentage. If we don't know that the 99.9% figure, precisely, is correct, then why are we using it? --LMS