001. the NCSE states in "Teach Them Science":
a) Richard Dawkins writes in in "River Out of Eden"(1996; ISBN 0465069908):
"after Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves [...] are long strings of pure digital information [...] the genetic code [...is] a quaternary code, with four symbols [...] the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like [...] this digital revolution at the very core of life has dealt the final, killing blow to vitalism -- the belief that living material is deeply distinct from nonliving material [p.017...] there is no spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic [p.018], mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes of digital information [p.019]."
b) Stephen Dutch writes in in "Historical Background of Evolution":
"one of the last holdouts of supernaturalism in science was the nature of life. Many thinkers held that there was something special about life that required a vital force or elan vital that was different from the laws governing inorganic matter. It was once held that chemists would never synthesize organic chemicals, but beginning in the mid-19th century that defense collapsed. The idea that life is driven by some sort of special force is termed vitalism. [But] Lightning is just electricity. [And] Life is chemistry and physics [...] the important thing to realize here is that hard-core supernaturalists weren't simply trying for a simple explanation of complex phenomena. They were desperately hoping for some phenomenon that would forever be inexplicable in conventional scientific terms, where nonbelievers would be compelled either to acknowledge the existence of the supernatural, or be put in a position of blatant intellectual dishonesty [this is what ID is trying these days, often through schools' science standards]."
002.a1. in "Science Education At Risk":
Note: we're told of false antiscience arguments masquerading as legitimate science, miseducating tomorrow's citizens while promoting a particular sectarian agenda through political muscle / curriculum revision end-runs [see 003., below].
Note: here, here.
002.c. CLP states in "Background":
Note: it is rather absurd to deny what we know about the world in the name of faith's figmentations [see 003., below].
003. naturopathy's archaic and absurd 'science', when figmentations profoundly NOT 21st-century are labeled scientific fact:
I have termed 'naturopathy's knowledge-blending unreason' "epistemic conflation nonsense" per:
"it follows then that naturopathic statements of being 'scientific, science-based, science, and a branch of medical science' are nonsense since they have radically unlimited the definition of science to such an extent that science and nonscience are indiscernible."
To borrow two labels from Susan Jacoby, this is 'intellectual quackery' and 'junk thought.'