Fred wrote:
The issue is whether the opinions of
someone posing as a scientist but in
fact pushing a position derived from
devine revelation is to be treated as
a legitimate divergent view from a
scientific viewpoint. Clearly, if not
excluded which is my preference, such
material should be clearly labeled as
to its nature, including references to
the source of the revelation.
I agree, if you're talking about the [[creation science]] viewpoint
about evolution. 95% of all scientists (and 99.8% of biologists) favor
the "no divine intervention" viewpoint on evolution.
Thus, I think it's safe to say that mainstream science favors the
Darwinist position. And that Creationists' attempt to fly the flag of
religion in scientific waters need not be endorsed by Wikipedia as a
"legitimate divergent view".
I disagree, if you're painting SEPP or its founder S. Fred Singer as
pushing a position based on divine revelation. Singer actually disagrees
with the only religious viewpoint I've ever heard expressed about CFCs.
For example, Rev. Moon said,
"The development of scientific knowledge and civilization has . . .
resulted in such global problems as the destruction of nature and the
environment, global warming and the diminishing of the ozone layer."
--
http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/sunmyungmoon95/SM950822.htm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Moon's view seems to differ from Singer's.
The reverend is blaming people for global warming and ozone depletion,
if I'm not reading this quotation out of context. The retired scientist
(Singer) is much less certain that human beings are to blame, and even
questions whether the phenomena Rev. Moon expressed so much concern
about, are even occurring!
Ed Poor