Secular and Atheistic

(1)

The other blog is coming along fairly well. I think I'm slowly beginning to paint a picture of what is going on.

Pat Robertson had an interesting rant against Evolution on the 700 Club, Thursday. He called the theory a '...weak... flawed doctrine... shot full of holes, which has been adopted by secular science as a religion.' He suggested that 'a million missing links' would be needed to make sense of the fossil record as it now stands. He ranted on and on for several minutes. Clearly, Pat Robertson is not a fan of Evolution.

In my opinion Pat is guilty of the most fundamental sort of 'category mistake.' Science and Religion are two entirely different categories, yet Pat insists on mixing them up in one larger category which he has not defined. Would 'knowlege' be a good name for such a category? Probably not. Scientific knowlege and religious knowlege are clearly different kinds of knowlege as things now stand.

Pat accuses scientists of being 'secular' and 'atheistic' as if that were some sort of travesty. Pat doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that science is necessarily 'secular and atheistic.'