Well, at least it’s a start. And not a defect, then, right?
Scientists are free to use whatever source of inspiration or intuition they want. Again, there are not thought police in the scientific community. What matters are your hypotheses, methods, data, and conclusions.
Shall I point out the irony of your saying “I can’t see” upon the heels of my comment about “wiilful blindness?”
I mean that not by way of excoriation, but of noting a simple lack of will, perhaps even on both our parts. If I knew the science of abiogenesis better, I could probably easily meet your request. For now, we might seem to be both a bit stymied.
I don’t think your interpretation of the Constitution is correct, Every American has the Constitution right to NOT be part of any religion and the Government can’t favor any religion over any other religion or no religion at all.
I never said differently. But the guarantee makes no mention of such a supposed “complete lack of” religion. My view comports with many who see both scientism and atheism, among other faith orientations, as functioning as “religions” in their own right, and you are, of course, free to practice your own orientation towards the metaphysical.
So, in conceiving of atheism as "religious " I’m actually including you under its protections.
Good morning, by the way!
For the irony to take hold you would actually have to demonstrate the existence of thing you claim I am blind to.
If you are going to promote an idea you should be prepared to show how it can be applied.
But, I already have, by getting you to at least begin to face the question that you are actually not the product of undirected, random, accidents of evolutionary process --not the least of which was pointing out that you can self-reflectively consider this by opening your eyes as you look in the mirror.
You are, of course, free to not like, or reject, the metaphor --but there it is.
The irony is that leads me to value you more highly than you might value yourself!
Then it has as much value as a flat earther making people face the question of the Earth not being round.
As a good and falsified counterpoint, “flat-earthism” was simply part of the historical transformation of thinking that we as a species all have or are going through, with some peculiar stragglers (who do not come exclusively from the ranks of the overtly religious, by the way).