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