[tacticalogic]

In this manner of "switching sides", it is immensely confusing to those observers who may not have been issued a scorecard, so as to know which players are on which teams.

What I don't understand is the tactic of using "guilt by association" arguments to link science to eugenics, Naziism, Communism, etc. while simultaneously trying to portray it as a "religion".

It seems to met that religion and theology ought to deserve better, particularly from people who profess to be dedicated proponents.

[CottShop]

[[What I don’t understand is the tactic of using “guilt by association” arguments to link science to eugenics, Naziism, Communism, etc.]]

I don’t agree with trying to mount arguments based on that tactic either- NOT all scientists are Atheists, some do believe in (As opposed to accepting Christ as Savior) a God, some don’t beleive there is a God, some just aren’t sure- Soem beleive God got the process started, soem don’t Beleive God did anything- etc- all these beleifs don’t make htem athiest Nazis- While htere ARE soem that are ardently rejctfull of the idea of God, their minority opinion certainly doesn’t vilify the whole lot no more than the opinions of some Creationists or even ID scientists should villify the whole of ID/Creation as soem on this thread try to claim.

[metmom]

What I don't understand is the tactic of using "guilt by association" arguments to link science to eugenics, Naziism, Communism, etc. while simultaneously trying to portray it as a "religion".

Easy one. It's the same tactic used by the evos when they try to link creationists and IDers to islam, the Taliban, Nazis, the Inquistion, etc.

That'll help you understand it better since evos are so adept at making those comparisons.