User talk:John Ekmark

Explaining my edits to:

NOMA

The substitution and the additions were made to clarify Gould's emphasis on the fact vs. values distinction, which has often been misleadingly lost in the controversy over NOMA. For example, some of Dawkins' criticisms are about whether the religion side remains within the framework of this distinction, but have been taken to suggest that the distinction does not exist in reality or should not be maintained. Direct quotes are available from RoA showing that Gould was arguing the usefulness of the fact-value distinction and that it should be maintained, not that religion (or scientists) always do so.

Another area of common confusion concerns authority over the magisteria, in which NOMA has been misrepresented as giving religion authority over values. Again, direct quotes are available from RoA explicitly rejecting such authority. As a result, it is better to quote Gould's definition, in terms of areas and tools of inquiry, rather than quoting summary statements representing the domains as "science" and "religion".

I am sorry if I overused the "minor edits" button - this is my first time editing on Wikipedia.

John Ekmark (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC) John Ekmark