Re: Religion Instead of Science

On 1 Jun 2005 11:32:05 -0700, "Googler"
<GOOGLE.4.godfatha@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>
>
>Dan Clore wrote:
>> Intervention Magazine
>> Religion Instead Of Science
>> May 30, 2005
>> Antievolution ideologues once again infiltrate the Kansas
>> school board to censor science and impose religious
>> creationism on public schools.
>> By Frederick Sweet
snip
>
>Although Sweet tries to hide his intent with a lot of scientific
>language, political rhetoric, and outright mistatements, his
>anti-religion agenda is manifest.
>
>Beginning with the title  - why title the piece "Religion instead of
>Science" unless you are asserting a conflict between the two? There
>isn't any such conflict, but the title would imply there is.
>
>If the title had been 'Creationism instead of Science' or even
>'Ideology instead of Science', then the issue would have been stated
>accurately. But such titles wouldn't suit Sweet's intentions.
>
>Why use an ideological stance like creationism to launch another
>'religion vs. science' war cry?  It should be clear to anyone,
>certainly one as intelligent as Sweet, that creationism is not
>*inherently* a "religious" position at all, because many religious
>people don't hold to it.  


Papal Infallibility must not be a religious position at all, because
many religious people don't hold to it.


Yet from the tone of the article, one would
>conclude that there is something about religiosity itself that makes
>these people creationists.


Gee, you think?  Creationism is a religious position.   Without
religion it would not exist.

>
>The article calls creationism a "theological position", implying that
>there is some actual theological basis for it and again emphasizing the
>religious tie-in.  He implies this is a dictionary definition.  Well,
>maybe Sweet's dictionary really says this. However, my edition of the
>same dictionary calls creationism a *belief*.  Now a belief could be
>religious, but it doesn't have to be.  In fact, many beliefs are
>non-religious  or even anti-religious.   Clearly, using 'belief' rather
>than 'theological position' would weaken the author's unstated
>intention.
>
>Is Sweet misquoting?  If he is using the same edition that I did, he
>is.  Even if he isn't, he should have  indicated that identifying
>creationism as a "theological position" is controversial.
>

He would have, but he is sane.



Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)