From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: science as religion
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.338
Posted: Sun Feb 20 23:18:38 1983
Received: Mon Feb 21 06:28:56 1983
Reply-To: lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.)

Steve Hutchison remarked:

Does the inclusion of the "modern scientific dogma" in discussions
in net.religion mean that there is an attempt at hand to establish it
as a religion??

-------------

I think it does, but Steve is the one who is making the effort. Actually,
I once formulated the sublime opinion that science is a religion. This
was the springboard for an afternoon debate with a friend of mine (who
found the idea shocking) which ended with me in confused defeat. I started
with the idea that science is opposed to religion and progressed to the
point that it must therefore be operating on the same plane, so to speak,
and so be a rival religion to the traditional ones.

Steve is probably alluding to the "secular humanism" business which is
cited by creationists as the religion behind evolution. Perhaps consistently
with my aforestated opinion, I have a certain amount of sympathy with this
point of view. The question of appropriate public school curricula gets
into some very sticky areas. Incidentally, I have Garner Ted Armstrong to
thank for the inspiration to actually read "The Origin of Species", realizing
as I did that I was among those who accepted evolution as unchallenged
dogma. I found that Garner Ted might very well have been using the
chapter on "Difficulties of the Theory" as a source, leaving off the
suggested resolutions of course.

		Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew