Naturopathy - "Religion Rather Than Science" - Wired Inspired, 2008:

a recent Wired Science article reminded me of what I've learned about the essentially religious / sectarian nature [context] of natural medicine / naturopathy, falsely [shamelessly!] presented by naturopathy to the public as science when profoundly not:

001. Wired Science states in "McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in [Public] School" {2008-08-29}:

"Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin wants creationism taught in [public school] science classes [yikes!...yet] state and federal courts have repeatedly rejected so-called creation science in public schools, calling it religion rather than science [...e.g.] the latest courtroom defeat came in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, when the superficially religion-neutral theory of intelligent design was classified as religious creationism [...e.g.] the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that teaching creationism [in public schools] violated the separation of church and state";

Note: historically, in the sense that creationism is supernatural and theistic dogma / based upon articles of faith / a creed, it is not scientific / based upon evidence / subject to revision -- therein, it is religious.

002. naturopathy's supernaturalism and theism type:

002.a. naturopathy is based upon the belief that physiology is run by a 'purposeful life spirit';

002.b. the theistic type that naturopathy essentially entails is "autoentheism." This is a term I coined to succinctly describe the naturopathic belief that 'god is within oneself controlling physiology as that life force';

003. the kicker, of course, is that naturopathy claims to be scientific, when essentially not [science PROFOUNDLY rejects vitalism, rejects supernaturalisms]. It is, essentially, religious / sectarian rather than science:

for a brief definition of sectarian, see Popular Science Monthly {Nov. 1889, v.36, p.122}:

"science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what can not be proved, for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed."