Wikipedia, the notoriously unreliable internet source that allows you to edit articles yourself and then use them to back yourself up on another forum on the internet?
If that’s being passed off as scientific, it’s no wonder there exists the sad state of affairs in public schools in science education and it’s no wonder the general populace doesn’t take *scientists* seriously. How can you when you can’t trust the information in the sources they post?
Some time ago on FR, wiki was used frequently by evos to back up their position until the editing issue came to light. Then, anyone who used it was criticized by the evos. You’re behind times.
Spontaneous generation was the latest in prevailing scientific thought of the day, just as alchemy was at one time. Louis Pasteur was a Christian and Franciscan. So much for theologians being the biggest proponent of spontaneous generation.
I also seem to recall, it was the scientists of the day who laughed at Simmelweis for simply asking doctors to wash their hands between autopsies and delivering babies and this as late as the early 1800’s.
Funny thing is, Jewish law had prescribed hygiene thousands of years before *modern* science had a clue about germs and disease transmission. The *theologians* had the *scientists* beat again.
“Wikipedia, the notoriously unreliable internet source that allows you to edit articles yourself and then use them to back yourself up on another forum on the internet?”
I thought the article was decent. Anyone can read the edit history.
Anyway you dismiss the concept out of hand anyway, so damn the source too while you’re at it.
Google the term and read about it elsewhere if you like!