GO BACK AND READ YOUR OWN POST FOR THE ANSWER...
I have reread the post (#342). It was in response to a statement you made:
They are the ones here bashing the religious folks...My response was that we are not bashing religious folks, but bad science:
If you were paying attention you might have noticed that many of us on the "evolution" side of these threads are defending science from religious-based attacks and distortions.That is a lot different than "bashing the religious folks."
What we are reacting to are statements like the following which are scientifically inaccurate or incorrect (these are only a few of many examples):
See the difference?
- Evolution is only a theory
- Evolution has not been proved
- Were you there?
- Evolution is a religion
- Macroevolution has never been observed
- Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy
- All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape
- Transitional fossils are lacking
- Carbon dating gives inaccurate results (one of my personal favorites)
- There is not enough moon dust for an old universe
Unless you are suggesting that religious folks should have free rein to utter any inaccurate and unsupported version of science they want just because they are religious, I do not see your point.
Who is "we," are you the self-appointed spokesman for all arm chair scientists?
When they are as divorced from reality as those of the Creationist stripe are wont to be, a little bashing is not entirely unwarranted. Labeling a psychopathology as "religious" in order to get a pass on criticism doesn't do anyone any favors. Tom Cruise doesn't get a free ticket to acceptance just because he calls his fruitcake delusions a "religion", and neither should the reality deniers of the Creationist persuasion.