The correction I provided dosent dance around the myths before facts problem facing our societies. Original correction provided in the link says the same thing essentially (though not the reprocussions part true) but is far too politically correct on the matter. Notice how they say things like "deeper understanding of nature" and "Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.". The last quote isn't even true because if there were any evidence for supernatural things it could be approached scientifically - such as if prayer actually did help people recover instead of being a 100% fail. They say "beliefs" which is a codeword for making up stuff with no basis in reality.Eh, the correction only included what was incorrect. I do not think that they were focused on the effects of believing the misconception.Serious flaw here:The following link clears up some misconceptions regarding evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ns_faq.phpThey need to man up and more explicitly say that when your fairy tale mythology flies in the face of facts and evidence the myth is proven out to be what it really is - just a figment of a misguided mind with no basis in reality.MISCONCEPTION: Evolution and religion are incompatible.
CORRECTION: Because of some individuals and groups stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science (which includes evolution) and religion are at war; however, the idea that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. People of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.
Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days does conflict with evolutionary theory); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE website. To learn more about the relationship between science and religion, visit the Understanding Science website.
It should read:People take the whole PC thing way to far on this. You can't simply let it go as there are pretty harmful reprocussions from reality denial that include copious amounts of needless suffering and deaths.Correction:
When religion accepts facts first and inserts thier supernatural belief into the gaps of knowledge then that is marginally acceptable. When those gaps are reduced by mounting evidence and facts the supernatural that previously occupied them must be thrown away. Failure to do so results in harm to the disbeliever in reality and those whom thier actions affect. This harm is proportional to the extent of thier disbelief because without understanding reality they cannot influence it in a rational way that is to thier actual intent and benefit.
I think it is important to mention what happens when people don't understand what is real because it is a commonly held myth that make believing reality, such as actually believing in religion, is not harmful.
