ah, how did i know you'd be one of anti global warming types.
Ummm, never mentioned global warming, so not sure what this is about.
personally i love how you site an article from behind a payroll as proof of systemic corruption (along with your oh so personal anecdotal evidence) then deliberately leave out the reason those retractions came about is that publications were considered horse s**t by most scientists in the field. it was looked into and exposed for its fraudulent nature by the very people you claim just go along with everything for ideological reasons.
Search harder and you'll find plenty on peer review fraud. It's just the tip.
I'm assuming you meant paywall there, and I have had personal experience in the field first hand and I'm assuming you have and have seen the lack of ethics that exists there.
as for Patrick Mathew, He never produced a working model his 1831 book never delved into workings of natural selection he merely sighted that natural selection was the most likely mechanism by which evolution followed. Yes he was correct in his reasoning, But what he printed was nowhere near detailed enough to be called an actual scientific theory.
Yes, the old "if you discover something first it doesn't count unless you convince the community of it" argument. Again, there is plenty of evidence that Darwin and his counterparts "borrowed" heavily from Matthew. I'd like to reiterate, I'm not discounting Darwins work.
By that notion we may as well look at Maupertuis and say **** it, he was robbed! Because as far as i can tell he was the first one propose the general notion of species changing over generations. Tell me do you also think Koch ripped off Pasteur?
Yes, there were plenty of stories in scientific history of people being robbed, by others who sold the story better. Watson and Crock for example. But hey, it depends on which story you believe. Starting to sound like religion, no?
apparently in your studies at the highest levels of science they never taught you the very basics, take no ones word for it. Its the very reason why the world remembers issac newton instead of robert hook, Because newton was able to demonstrate what hook had been arguing.
Attempting to argue darwin ripped mathew off is doing exactly what you've claimed as systemic within the "highest levels of the scientific community" you've glossed over the general issues in order to make it fit with your position.
Yes I agree, take no one's word for it, which you seem to be proposing in relation to science. Let's just follow the most famous names and ignore the lesser lights.
and on top of all of this none of this has anything to do with the fact religion should not be taught as science. It's not science, it's theology and that is all it ever will be. The erosion of the separation of between theological teachings and historical and scientific study at numerous religious schools is dangerous and damages the career paths of students as they are being given false information.
Plenty of students are given the wrong information in regards to Science as well. Its quite often taught as dogma. Many science teachers are less open minded than RE teachers in my experience in the education system. But please feel free to list all the schools you can categorically state are teaching religion as science.
I mean you really think kids should be taught that two of every single animal jumped on a boat to survive a global flood is an actual historical event?
No. And I've never seen this taught in any schools in AUS or OS.
Because thats the conversation being discussed when you reacted like a fundie, Getting all defensive and trying to shift the topic away from the influence the american evangelicals are currently exploiting in many christian schools in this country.
all over a topic you apparently give so little of a s**t about, that you can't decide where you sit in regards to it.
I know where I sit. I can't prove or disprove the existence of a God, or fairies, or aliens. And neither can you. But at least I'm open minded enough to accept other people's beliefs and have tolerance for them.