That's not science, that's religion

It is very common to hear some creationists accuse scientists who accept evolutionary theory of being dogmatic or religious about the theory. This accusation is made despite the strong evidential base for many evolutionary claims like the shared ancestry of man with other great apes.

Evolutionary biologists aren’t the only ones that are often accused of being religious or dogmatic. This accusation is sometimes thrown at pro-vaxxers as well. From comments on PS, some YECs, OECs and ID proponents accept vaccines as safe and effective, thus, are subject to the accusation.

So I have to ask, when you accept and promote the science-based medical practice of vaccination with rigorously tested vaccines, are you being religious as claimed by some anti-vaxxers? This question is mostly for YECs, OECs, ID proponents, and others who reject modern evolutionary theory.

@thoughtful, @Edgar, @r_speir. Others can chime in as well.

I haven’t ever seen this claim thrown at “pro-vaxxers” tbh. My experience with a few who are anti-vaxxers is that they may genuinely think others are uniformed and they actually have more knowledge because they are skeptical and consider and research every anti- detail they hear from people or read on the internet. Maybe that leads to thinking the other position is religious. But I think they would only be the case if they are anti-religious themselves and so would use that as a pejorative.

1 Like

Here is a good blog post to read on this:

Yes, many antivaxxers think they are woke and know information the rest of the “sheepie” don’t. However, some of the brains behind the antivaxxer movement are trained scientists, people who should know better but somehow don’t. These antivax scientists have PhDs and research experience in immunology, virology, and other areas relevant to vaccine research.

Exactly. And some creationists feel this way as well.

Someone like Bill Maher is antivax and nonreligious, but a good number of other antivaxxers are deeply religious. They (falsely) see a parallel between their religious dogmas and actual scientific ideas that have resisted their pseudoscientific onslaught.

1 Like

Strangely, you never hear a scientist who accepts evolution accuse creationism of being science as a way of denigrating the creationist position. And yet, the religious brand evolution as a religion in order to denigrate it. I think that says a lot about how those creationists view their own beliefs in relation to science.


I think this would backfire even if it is meant to denigrate the creationist position. Imagine Richard Dawkins genuinely calling creationism a proper science (just like some of them say evolution is a proper religion) before a large physical audience and the internet at large. Headlines would read, “Chief Darwinist, Richard Dawkins finally admits creationism is science-based” :smile:

That’s why this thread is for the group of creationists who believe evolution is a religion. I want to see how they respond to the charge that their acceptance of vaccines is tantamount to engaging in religion.

This seems pertinent:


Another interesting blog post from Dr Gorski on the thread’s topic: