Science really is something apart from religion. It is allowed and basically expected to change its story. After all, it is argued from the current preponderance of evidence. It converges over time upon an increasingly accurate description of nature. No religion does this or even claims to.
And with what, for lack of a better term, I'd call "apologetics logic". Sophistical lawyering, equivocation, that sort of thing.
You are correct in every way. Anti-evolutionists set up Hitler and Stalin as their examples of Devils, and then attribute to them supernatural powers. The IDist/creationists seem to get their jollies from "guilt by association", whatever negative assocation they can come up with.
IDists claim that there is an "intelligent design" view and that evolution is "an equal religion". They say "Darwinism". Of course, there is no such thing as "Darwinism". This is a word made up by IDists to label those who do not accept their views. A cheap argument by labeling. There is no definition of "darwinism" except by what IDists set up as a strawman argument.
But consider what characterizes traditional religions and whether evolution is a religion. The historical record shows numerous distinctions.
As a starting point, we are careful about "I think" and "I believe". In casual language, I "think" daffodils are beautiful is the same as I "believe", I 'consider' daffodils to be beautiful, I 'regard/appreciate' daffodils as beautiful. Religious faiths do not use the phrase "I think"; they say "I believe". We all know the joke that "we should all believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink."
There is no reason to consider the theory of storkism as equal to the missionary position. The "teach the controversy" position collapses on storks.
Personally, I like storks.
Agree completely. Having been reared on scholasticism, they have a hard time changing mental gears to empiricism, and are often not even familiar with the concept.
Science really is something apart from religion. It is allowed and basically expected to change its story. After all, it is argued from the current preponderance of evidence. It converges over time upon an increasingly accurate description of nature. No religion does this or even claims to.
See the first comment; sometimes the misunderstanding is mutual--scientists who are of the bent of "everything must be empirically verified" are sometimes left in the cold when religion dealing with a personal God tells them to trust, instead of verify.
And if religion is not primarily concerned in the first place with obtaining an accurate description of nature, then don't ask it to. Take it, as you would science, on its own terms. Moral strictures are not empirically derived.
Cheers!