[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?

[valkyry1]

You mean like your fibs?

Wake up Coyote. As long as you are still breathing, it’s not to late.

[betty boop]

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

I, for one — a self-confessed Christian — do not equate creationism with science.

Moreover I am not interested in putting creationism into science class, for it clearly belongs in philosophy class. Still, I am forbidden by the (doctrinaire) "powers that be" from doing even this in the public schools. Why???

Creationism is ontological in its focus (ontology = the study of being and existence and their relations), science is empirical (having to do with measurement of events taking place in the observable, physical world). There are very clear distinctions between these two branches of intellectual inquiry. It is only when science becomes "ontological" and metaphysical in its utterances that we need to worry. For such statements are beyond the scope and purview of the scientific method.

And yet Darwinist evolution theory clearly gives us a metaphysical account of the rise and progress of man. It actually gives us a human ontology that has a profound bearing on the human moral order, and thus social organization; and which poses a direct challenge to the traditional idea of the Good, not to mention it puts the justification of human free will in dire jeopardy.

As such, it actually does have the form of an ersatz religious doctrine — one that kinda reminds me of Wahabbist Islamic doctrine. Especially the part about human free will.