More Cognitive Dissonance

As I posted previously Darwinists insist that ID must be nothing but religion in disguise, even when they admit that it need not be.  Here’s another example.

I scanned some of Professor Voss’ proposed textbook changes. I admit that nowhere did I see him propose “therefore God, divine being, higher power, sacred text” or the like. But he does propose, “Other explanations for what is observed on earth should be examined.”

Well, he doesn’t talk about god, divine beings, higher powers, or sacred texts…but he must be talking about religion, right?

Therein lies the rub. What other explanations could there possibly be that are nonreligious? (Besides extraterrestrials.)

Well, Dr. Wright, if you are going to answer your own question…

There may be other possibilities, but only one will suffice.  Of course, even though he shows quite well that ID is not necessarily religious, he goes right ahead and asserts that it is.

Intelligent design (note the expression!) in public schools functionally guarantees teaching/discussing religious ideas as “truth.”

Again, I find myself feeling somewhat sorry for someone so entrenched in their worldview that they are physically unable to see that they’ve just proven themself wrong.  It’s really sad.


2 responses to “More Cognitive Dissonance

  1. That which has theistic implications cannot ever be scientific. That which has atheistic implications can only be scientific. Don’t you see?

  2. professorsmith

    Ah, it all makes sense now…. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s