How about the reality crowd?
How often do you see public debate in teaching the controversy in Thermodynamics? Or stork theory (cabbage leaf creationism) at the public school level?
Intelligent Design is a creationist position. It is a deliberate theist - rather than deist - position, advocated and financed by theists. Do you paint them
as anti-realists for demanding that their bronze age scripture provides a better understanding for the workings of the universe? One on equal footing to the
mountains of evidence supporting evolution?
There is nothing militant about demanding actual science in a science classroom, or by pointing out the obvious inanity of the creationist/ID position. If
someone told you that you, svelte, beautiful, you were created by undetectable, unknowable, creatures called werfgibbles; and the only reason that they know
about them is the revelation of the werfgibbles, handed down to them by their ancestors; you would not take it seriously.
Call the werfgibbles god and suddenly it is anti-theist?
It is not anti-theist. Walking into a church and demanding equal time for the presentation of there-is-no-god theories during the sermon would be anti-theist.
Telling theists to stop trying to insert their god, for whom they have not a lick of evidence, into science classes is not anti-theist, any more than trying
to telling any random lunatic with no evidence (or even mechanism for the detection of that evidence) that they should not be inserting their codswollop into a
science class (Atlantean crystals, pyramid power, etc.)
It is not anti-theist.
It is anti-idiot.
How often do you see public debate in teaching the controversy in Thermodynamics? Or stork theory (cabbage leaf creationism) at the public school level?
Intelligent Design is a creationist position. It is a deliberate theist - rather than deist - position, advocated and financed by theists. Do you paint them
as anti-realists for demanding that their bronze age scripture provides a better understanding for the workings of the universe? One on equal footing to the
mountains of evidence supporting evolution?
There is nothing militant about demanding actual science in a science classroom, or by pointing out the obvious inanity of the creationist/ID position. If
someone told you that you, svelte, beautiful, you were created by undetectable, unknowable, creatures called werfgibbles; and the only reason that they know
about them is the revelation of the werfgibbles, handed down to them by their ancestors; you would not take it seriously.
Call the werfgibbles god and suddenly it is anti-theist?
It is not anti-theist. Walking into a church and demanding equal time for the presentation of there-is-no-god theories during the sermon would be anti-theist.
Telling theists to stop trying to insert their god, for whom they have not a lick of evidence, into science classes is not anti-theist, any more than trying
to telling any random lunatic with no evidence (or even mechanism for the detection of that evidence) that they should not be inserting their codswollop into a
science class (Atlantean crystals, pyramid power, etc.)
It is not anti-theist.
It is anti-idiot.