[betty boop]

Anyways, this is a roundabout way of coming to my point, which is that I have noticed there is a bit more going on than scientists being “passionate about their work”. If such were the case, why would scientists object to both sides being taught in philosophy courses? Why do so many insist that ONLY evolution be taught in such courses?

Stress philosophy courses here! Indeed, why do so many insist that ONLY evolution be taught? This insistence is both anti-rational and a violation of the tradition of academic freedom, a/k/a freedom of thought and conscience.

One surmises that such folks are devotees of a quasi-religious doctrine trying to pass itself off as "science." From my perspective, based on my experience, I don't know how else to think of it.

Thank you so much for your kind words about Alamo-Girl's and my book, Timothy. Truly, we were going for the wider perspective, for the "big picture," if you will.

And thank you for your excellent reply to Coyoteman!

[Coyoteman]

One surmises that such folks are devotees of a quasi-religious doctrine trying to pass itself off as "science." From my perspective, based on my experience, I don't know how else to think of it.

And creationists should know all about "quasi-religious doctrine trying to pass itself off as 'science'" as that is the game they have been playing for decades now. And there is nothing "quasi-religious" about it.

First it was creationism, then creation "science," then ID and its spinoffs "critical analysis" and "teach the controversy."

They can't get creationism into schools if they are honest about it, so they pretend it is science. It is not.

As part of the same effort they are trying to equate the evolutionary sciences with religion. They are not.

But what the heck. If you're going to fib about one thing, why not fib about a bunch of things?