|
 |
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:30:19 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> I was thinking of something else (but of course I can't remember what
>> now). You are correct that ID does try to pretend to be - I guess I'm
>> having a problem with "scientific" being combined with "religious
>> belief" and that's what led me to say "anti-scientific" - as I see
>> 'religious belief' as being antithetical to 'knowledge'.
>
> The whole idea with the "intelligent design" movement is to mask the
> fact that it's simply repackaged creationism, by removing all mentions
> of "God" and other theistic claims.
Yes, but a rebranding of creationism as "intelligent design" doesn't mean
it's not religiously motivated. I guess for those who don't see through
that deception and who have a very limited understanding of what
scientific discovery actually is might think it was 'an appearance of
science'.
> In the worst case scenario the whole schooling system could get
> sabotaged
> to a catastrophical point. Science, technology and progress would suffer
> enormously.
Yes, and I think ultimately this demonstrates the real danger of this
type of theistic thinking - not to mention that when it enters the public
schools, it violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution. If
a public school is teaching religious theology about the creation of the
universe (whether they use religious metaphors or not), I'm sorry, that's
state-sponsored religion, and that's unconstitutional.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
