re: #768 Charles

… I’ll repost my comment to you:

Creationists really love this stupid “evolution is religion” argument, because they’ve failed utterly in trying to promote their religious pseudo-science to the status of real science, so instead they need to redefine science as religion so they can criticize it on the same level. Cognitive dissonance is inherent in this silliness; the only conclusion is that religion is somehow “less” than science, because when creationists do this it’s always intended as a smear against science.

It’s degrading to both science and religion, but it’s to be expected since intelligence and logic aren’t strong suits of creationists.

I don’t have a problem being in the minority in my scientific viewpoint. In fact, I have always welcomed it. I chose some of the strongest evolutionists to be on my Ph.D. committee. Furthermore, I have never supported using the legal system to promote creationism, neither do I support its use to promote science. Government should be neutral in this area. Unfortunately, it is not.

What I object to are arguments within science that has more appeal to authority and popularity, and using the legal system rather than rational discussions of the empirical data. I am interested in the truth and do not think that my belief in a spirit world and revelation should be used against me in arguing interpretations of empirical data. The bias against a Creator in science is what offends me, and the HYPOCRISY of claiming that the religious practice of using dogma and authority should not be allowed in science while at the same time invoking these same methods to expell creationists from careers in science. It is the hypocrisy that I am pointing out. I also am hoping that the true scientists among us, the true lovers of truth, will turn away from dangerous dogma and get back to discussing interpretations of the empirical data.