g.read at NIWA.CRI.NZ
Fri Apr 12 14:07:34 CDT 2002
> I was referring to belief as a view accepted as true or real with OR
> without 'proof' (evidence etc).
Again I'm not aware that anyone in science accepts anything without
> In the case of nearest relative to humans the
> doctrine was that chimps are our nearest relatives.
Their full two sentences were "Because we share a recent common
ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have many anatomical, genetic,
biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes.
We are less similar to the Asian apes - orangutans and gibbons - and even
less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these
groups in the more distant past."
Returning to your original starting point about doctrine. If the Science and
Creationism booklet has a certain tone that 'only we scientists know best'
then that is unfortunate. If there are finely debatable statements that also is
unfortunate, but hardly unusual in 'pop sci'. Overall, if imperfect, it does
seem to have helpful content for its intended audience to consider.
Geoff Read <g.read at niwa.cri.nz>
More information about the Taxacom