On 4/22/2011 10:05 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:47:38 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Strictly speaking, its only a violation if it only covers "one" creation
>> theory, from a single religion.
>
> If they're doing a comparative religions course, sure.  Not if they're
> calling it 'science'.  Another case of laypeople using a term in a way
> that is not appropriate.
>
Yes, well.. The only people on their side really "calling" it science 
also tend to think praying over your kid, who is bleeding to death 
internally, constitutes "science" too, since you know, in the Babble, 
doing that heals people. Most of the people pushing for ID to be used as 
an alternative are not making that argument. The argument they are 
making is, "I don't know a damn thing about the science, so I am going 
to assume there isn't anything too it, and if their isn't, I don't see 
why my mythology shouldn't trump secular mythology." They very clearly 
think this is an argument between whether or not Yahweh or Darwin 
created the world in 6 days. In short, its ignorance trying to replace 
knowledge, because the people involved think a 2,000 year old copy of 
Grimm's Fairy Tales is, being old, a better description of what is going 
on than 200 years of people taking the thing apart and figuring out how 
it actually does.

Post a reply to this message