Re: Religion Instead of Science

Googler 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
>>
>>"Kansas Begins Hearings on Diluting Teaching of Evolution,"
>>announces the May 5, 2005, New York Times headline. The
>>antievolution hearings were in Topeka, Kansas.
>>
>>"In the first of three daylong hearings characterized here
>>as the direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a
>>parade of Ph.D.s testified today about the flaws they find
>>in Darwin's theory of evolution, transforming a small
>>auditorium into a forum on one of the most controversial
>>questions in education and politics: How to teach about the
>>origin of life?

....

>>Frederick Sweet is Professor of Reproductive Biology in
>>Obstetrics and Gynecology at Wa****ngton University School of
>>Medicine in St. Louis. You can email your comments to
>>mailto:Fred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>Wednesday, June 1, 2005
>>http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/
>>http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1091

> Although Sweet tries to hide his intent with a lot of scientific
> language, political rhetoric, and outright mistatements, his
> anti-religion agenda is manifest.

	Since when is pro-science anti-religion?

> 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.

	He is recounting creationism. First Intelligent Designer singular instead
of designers plural and 
then if you wear gl***** the designer was rather stupid.

> 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.

	Creationism is a religion thing. No need to make apologies for all
religion when other religions 
remain silent about these creationists.

	When there is no sup****t from any religion which accepts evolution which
is all the mainstream ones 
then this is an issue of religion.

	Never speak ill of thy fellow Christian is a policy which does not
address the issue.

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

	So list the religions which have formally endorsed evolution or at least
condemned creationists. As 
there are none it is a valid title.

> 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.

	Produce a list of the Kansas churches which have taken a position in this
matter.

-- 
Would god be so dumb as to create a creationist?
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 3429
  nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
  Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml
a6