celtic_elk
Posts: 11
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
What I find interesting (and granted, this may only be of interest to me, because I study the subject informally) is the resistance to being labelled "mythology." Calvert is quoted later in the article as saying "To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it's just another example of labeling anybody who proposes (intelligent design) to be simply a religious nut." The implication here is clearly that to label something "mythology" is to say it's intellectually worthless. Most people who actually *study* religion, on the other hand, would argue that mythology has had, and continues to have, tremendous importance in shaping the human worldview throughout the centuries. I guess ID sees anything less than full scientific recognition as evidence of its second-class status. Not surprising, that....
|
