Truth in Science (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Truth in Science" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
1st place
1st place
197th place
356th place
low place
low place
8th place
10th place
low place
low place
27th place
51st place
241st place
193rd place
367th place
243rd place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
9,065th place
7,557th place
4,584th place
3,029th place
low place
low place
18th place
17th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
146th place
110th place
low place
low place
774th place
716th place
low place
low place
14th place
14th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
772nd place
849th place
2nd place
2nd place
4th place
4th place
210th place
157th place

aaas.org

answersingenesis.org

archive.today

bbc.co.uk

news.bbc.co.uk

bbc.co.uk

  • Professor Stuart Burgess appeared on a radio interview with BBC Northern Ireland on 18 April 2004.Burgess stated his position that the Earth "is around 6000 years old, that's what the bible says". In drawing a conjunction between science and religion, Burgess said that one's choice of explanation was "faith versus faith", and that "either you have faith in evolution or faith in creation". Burgess went on to concede "that the Earth has the appearance of great age" on the grounds that "the bible says that God created a mature Earth, and a mature universe, with Adam mature, and trees being mature". The interviewer quizzed Burgess on the matter of a deceptive God. In his response, Burgess explained, "when man came into the universe he would have that fully functioning universe ready to enjoy". In response to further challenges, Burgess said that the Big Bang is a religious faith, which contradicts the first law of thermodynamics. In his penultimate question, the interviewer, William Crawley, asked Burgess "You're not concerned that you're messing up the minds of young people by giving them the impression that they have to commit scientific suicide in order to be believers?" to which Burgess responded: "My main concern, is that on the day of Judgment, people will not say to God 'my excuse is the theory of evolution', for not believing in God, because God will say that is not an excuse". — Sunday Sequence - Finding God in the Universe Archived 2006-01-17 at the Wayback Machine.

coe.int

assembly.coe.int

doi.org

ekklesia.co.uk

ft.com

guardian.co.uk

education.guardian.co.uk

harvard.edu

hcs.harvard.edu

interacademies.net

  • "We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature." IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file) Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine

jci.org

jimknightmp.com

justscience.org.uk

ncseweb.org

newscientist.com

newyorker.com

  • "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25, 2006.

nih.gov

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

nsta.org

parliament.uk

publications.parliament.uk

edmi.parliament.uk

richarddawkins.net

royalsoc.ac.uk

  • "The Royal Society fully supports questioning and debate in science lessons, as long as it is not designed to undermine young people's confidence in the value of scientific evidence." Some proponents of an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth now claim that their theories are based on scientific evidence. One such view is presented as the theory of intelligent design. This proposes that some species are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and that therefore life on Earth must be the product of a 'designer'. Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treat gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist - as if they were evidence for a 'designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not." Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

timesonline.co.uk

truthinscience.org

  • "Truck in Science". 2022. Retrieved 1 February 2022.

unsw.edu.au

science.unsw.edu.au

web.archive.org

wikisource.org

en.wikisource.org

worldmag.com

  • "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25, 2006.