Collectively, these statements
describe religious dogma, not scientific fact.
The texts on character education, says Kohn, «
describe religious dogma, not scientific fact.»
Not exact matches
E.g., in regards to scientific support for evolution and rejection of creationism and the young earth
dogma, in 1986, 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, signed an amicus curiae brief asking the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism, which the brief
described as embodying
religious dogma.
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief
described as embodying
religious dogma).
Spiritual, but not
religious can also
describe a large number of people who have very solid, very defined beliefs but do not feel the need to dress them in doctrine and
dogma and ritual.
Drawing on recent examples ranging from the evolution debate to vaccine skepticism, Otto
describes the emergence of an antiscience movement whose focus is to disrupt the creation of evidence - based policy for the sake of preserving profitable business models or entrenched
religious dogma.
In
describing the difference between «equilibrium sensitivity» and «transient response» you get into descriptions which sound very much like
religious belief or
dogma.