Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!

Nope, that's pretty much what I meant. You're anti-science, and creationism is anti-science. You can't deny this, you're already on record of accusing scientists of just making it up, and that's about as anti-science as you can get.I'm not casting accusations of being anti-science to be dramatic. I'm saying them because they're true. I've read the Discovery Institute's wedge document which makes clear their goals, one of which is to undermine methodological naturalism that underpins all of scientific investigation. Have you read that document? I think it's now been said by several different people that your posts indicate a lack of much familiarity with evolution and its supporting evidence, which means you have no grounds upon which to reject it. Your posts in this thread have oscillated between no-content and erroneous content. Surely you agree that it is unlikely in the extreme that a valid conclusion could follow from a series of errors and misconceptions.Someone suggested that you discuss the actual details of evolution in another thread, because you're not going to get them here in this thread since it would be off-topic. I think that's a good suggestion, because then you'd learn that just like in the other fields of science you claimed you learned, "physics, math, chemistry, thermodynamics, materials, etc. etc.", that biologists are not just making up the data for evolution. Saying such things (and it was not the only one of such things that you said) indicates to us a profound ignorance of the evidence for evolution, evidence that began with Darwin's notebooks from his voyage on the HMS Beagle and that you can examine yourself, and that continued on from then through the present.A question probably all of us have is how you could learn so much of other fields of science and virtually nothing of the unifying principle of all of biology. And that's the true topic of this thread: how does conservative Christianity have this cult-like power to turn people with perfectly normal intellectual capabilities on all other topics into mindless automatons when it comes to evolution.You're a perfect example of it's power, a power so pure and sinister that it has apparently left you unaware of your anti-science behavior and your nearly perfect lack of knowledge about anything related to evolution. Your make one misstatement after another about evolution, and when people point this out instead of being able to use the same intellect you would apply to physics and math you instead complain about the poor treatment you're receiving.If I marched into a Christian website and started declaring that I've studied all about the Bible and know what I'm talking about and that the apostles just made the whole thing up, do you really think anyone would believe that I'd done much studying if discussion revealed I hadn't the faintest familiarity when any chapter from any book of the Bible? Of course they wouldn't believe me. They'd think I was an arrogant blowhard. But you're doing the equivalent thing here. You're claiming you have knowledge while at the same time demonstrating you don't, and then you're blaming others for having the bad manners to point this out.--Percy

Hi Mystic,You're making this into a personal thing when it isn't, but I don't blame you at all for resenting my effort to turn you from a participant into an object of study as an example of creationist brainwashing.I'm still actually kind of fuzzy on your actual position, so please forgive me when I get it wrong. True, you only said in Message 85 that scientists had made up family tree charts, but then you said evolution hadn't been tested, that it violated statistics, you equated it to perpetual motion machines, and you said that it was a bizarre idea. So if evolution is so wrong but you don't believe scientists are just making it up (except for family tree charts), then where do you believe support for the idea is coming from? Unless you actually get into an examination of the data and point out where and how it is wrong and doesn't actually support evolution, any answer you propose is going to be anti-science.For instance, later in your message you suggest it is an issue of interpretation, implying that thousands of scientists over 150 years are incapable of interpreting data. Unless you're willing to actually get into the data and show how the interpretations are wrong, this is an anti-science attitude. This is yet another indication of your unfamiliarity with the subject. The Discovery Institute was the primary entity on the ID side of the Dover trial in 2005. Does it seem contradictory to you to claim competence to discuss the topic while at the same time conceding such unfamiliarity. Well, first let me state that I'm delighted that an on-topic discussion has actually broken out on this thread.You've made your unawareness of the details of evolution obvious from the many times you've drifted off topic to discuss evolution. Have you forgotten your classic "turn cats into dogs" statement from Message 112? It may even be helpful if I produced a post containing a list of your misstatements about evolution in this thread, because it would again provoke one of the responses we're examining, the peculiar inclination of creationists to simultaneously exhibit and deny a lack of knowledge of evolution. But that's what we're discussing, isn't it? What is the source of evangelical Christianity's cult-like power to turn otherwise rational human beings into irrational opponents of widely accepted and extremely well supported science. Oh, yes, quite right! It is quite evident we haven't yet discovered the secret of removing the plank from the eyes of creationists. You're mistaking an unwillingness to uncritically accept your unsupported allegations with intolerance. For example, if you think evolutionary biologists just made up the charts of family trees, then support it with evidence and argument (not here in this thread, of course). I think you'll have as much trouble finding evidence for that position as I would finding evidence that the gospel stories were fabricated by the apostles.If I can be permitted to anticipate your own position, I expect that you believe that perceiving creationism as an example of the expression of evangelical Christianity's cult-like power can only be considered accurate if the scientific support for evolution is as strong as evolutionists believe. Since we can't settle that issue of the validity of evolutionary theory here, I again suggest you participate in some of the evolution threads. After you've demonstrated that the evidence doesn't support evolution, you can return here and much more effectively make your case that evangelical Christianity is not exerting any cult-like power when it comes to evolution.--Percy

Well, the way it appears to me is that someone who is trained in the sciences as you claim to be and who therefore understands that valid conclusions can only be drawn after familiarizing yourself with the evidence, and who then demonstrates unfamiliarity with something but claims his conclusions are nonetheless valid, is behaving in a contradictory manner. Brainwashing by evangelical Christian principles is my hypothesis for the cause. What is your hypothesis for the cause of your belief that the conclusions you draw about evolution are valid despite your lack of knowledge about evolution? You came here as someone with a bunch of beliefs that you hold as unchallengeable, so as soon as they were challenged you began hurling unsupported accusations about, as you do next: Well, sticking with your analogy of "a whites only restaurant", it looks to me that, unable to support much of anything you've said with evidence or rational argument, you're playing the race card and accusing us of blatant discrimination.Might I suggest that a more effective way of countering the brainwashing hypothesis is to demonstrate a willingness to listen and discuss rather than to sneer, declare a victory of moral superiority, and leave. If you really had any scientific arrows in your quiver you'd remain behind and use them.--Percy

Well, once again we maddening, infuriating, lying, dishonest evolutionists have forced a creationist from the field of battle. He was apparently appalled by our dastardly use of facts and rational argument in defense of reality.I'll repeat my earlier conclusions regarding the thread's topic, which highlights the term "cult". I don't believe creationism is a cult. But the title also uses the term (removing the highlighting of "cult") "cultural movement". Is creationism a cultural movement?I don't believe so. Creationism quite obviously originated in evangelical Christianity's concern about the potential negative effect of the teaching evolution on their children's faith. But creationism has become a strong religious force within our culture, and creationist views are now strongly reflected in that culture, with roughly half of Americans believing the earth is only 6000 years old.Clearly creationism is so powerful that it has strongly influenced our culture, which is already predominantly Christian in background if not observance. This cultural quality appears to be a passive force. I think that many people who reply in polls that they believe the world is 6000 years old do so just because they're ignorant of science and that's what they were taught in Sunday school, and not out of any strong religious convictions. When push comes to shove at open school board meetings, these same people are either not present or not vocal and are probably open to hearing scientific information.But such is not the case for evangelical Christians. If evangelical Christians were evenly distributed across the country they would not form a majority in any community, but the US has a large and growing Bible belt where such evangelical beliefs dominate, and the concentration gives them great political power because their elected representatives speak for them at both the state and federal level. For example, consider senator Rick Santorum's and representive Mark Souder's spirited defense of IDist Richard Sternberg's misbehavior as editor of a science journal.And so creationists represent a strong anti-science force both within our culture and in our political establishment. At a religious level it has an almost cult-like influence on people that enables them to believe irrational things, at a cultural level it influences what is taught in public schools, and at a political level the laws of our nation can actually be influenced so as to favor creationism. Because science and technology are key elements in maintaining our status as an influential and affluent nation, and because creationism is anti-science, it is a force that we cannot and must not ignore.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Despite TheMystic's claim of an education in physics, chemistry and so forth, he declared his anti-science bias right at the outset when he said, "I don't buy this urban legend about some sacred 'scientific method'." I found TheMystic's contributions to be incredibly error-filled and full of ad hominem, so I thought a summary in order. I'm primarily doing this to make clear that despite his claims to the contrary, he knew little of evolution, was strongly anti-science, and more than gave as good as he got when it came to personal criticism.Here I enumerate the many errors, anti-science statements, and expressions of ignorance presented by TheMystic:

1. He rejects the scientific method. (Message 9)
   ​
2. Questions replication as an effective form of validation. (Message 14)
   ​
3. Somehow links the scientific method to ruling out the existence of God. (Message 16)
   ​
4. Claims the scientific method isn't really how useful things have been invented or discovered. (Message 16)
   ​
5. Asks if there's really any such thing as the scientific method. (Message 23)
   ​
6. Responds to a question of how he would use his method to study disease with a non sequitur about making people sick on purpose. (Message 33)
   ​
7. Believes the Scopes trial supported the existence of God (Message 34)
   ​
8. "No, my point is that there is no such thing as the 'scientific method'." (Message 39)
   ​
9. "If you're going to dispute me, please argue from outside of science, since science is the question here (to me - I don't believe in it)." (Message 39)
   ​
10. "If we have to argue whether creationism is science we at best waste our time because science, as I'm vainly trying to demonstrate, has no hard definition." (Message 49)
    ​
11. When informed that science is a consensus activity, he somehow misconstrues consensus as universal agreement. (Message 67)
    ​
12. In a significant non sequitur, says that most smart people throughout time have not accepted evolution, which is true but irrelevant since the theory was only developed about a century and a half ago. (Message 69)
    ​
13. Indicates no understanding that reliable interpretation of evidence requires a consensus. (Message 69)
    ​
14. "I thoroughly reject the notion that I must be able to prove something in order to hold it as true." (Message 72)
    ​
15. And now, from Home Improvement we have, "Same with evolution, from a very wide angle point of view: random mutations and natural selection - a couple of sentences are supposed to explain the fantastic complexity of life? I don't think so, Tim." (Message 82)
    ​
16. Accuses scientists of making up family tree charts, claims fossils have no relationship among them, says evolution hasn't been tested, the mechanism of evolution violates the principles of statistics, calls evolution a quaint idea, equates it to perpetual motion machines, and calls it a bizarre chapter in history, all with no substantiation or evidence whatsoever. (Message 85)
    ​
17. "Yes, I do periodically follow some new development in evolution, and there's some very interesting discoveries, but nothing to suggest that anybody has really discovered any mechanism where species can evolve in the grand scale that Darwin proposed...What is lacking is any serious explanation of how species can evolve from each other, not to mention repeatable experimental proof that they do indeed evolve (save me the bacteria resistance)..." (Message 85)
    ​
18. Says, "I don't think I said I was conservative christian, did I?" (Message 95), just after saying, "I came to evolution from a strict religious upbringing," (Message 85) and having entered the thread as an admitted creationist. Can you say disingenuous?
    ​
19. While conceding they may be more scientific now, says that 30 years ago family tree charts were "wild-assed guesses." (Message 96)
    ​
20. "I didn't say I rejected the age-of-the-earth evidence, though I do think a lot of it is bogus, profoundly prejudiced by a need to find enough time span to numb the imagination." (Message 97)
    ​
21. Somehow views concern about melting icecaps as inconsistent with acceptance of long timeframes. (Message 97)
    ​
22. Describes evolution incorrectly as having a direction toward greater complexity. (Message 99) Does so again in Message 118.
    ​
23. Displays an unawareness of the principle of tentativity, and an inability to see the distinction between science itself and technology, which is only the application of science. (paragraph 1, Message 107)
    ​
24. Once again displays his ignorance of evolution by referring to it as a "vaguely defined theory." (paragraph 4, Message 107)
    ​
25. Expresses the belief that only those who have done the experiments themselves are qualified to talk about something. (paragraph 4, Message 107)
    ​
26. Confuses education about science with indoctrination in a religion. (msg=-110)
    ​
27. Demonstrates a complete ignorance of the evidence for evolution by saying, "I think the onus is on the evolutionist to prove his case." (Message 112) Seems not to understand that sufficient evidence for evolution was uncovered over a hundred years ago.
    ​
28. Demonstrates even greater ignorance of evolution, seeming to believe that turning cats into dogs is a view somehow consistent with evolution. (Message 112) Requests that we not comment on his ignorance.
    ​
29. Calls nonsense and a sweeping generalization the statement that, "Creationists avoid the halls of science as if they were the inner regions of hell." (Message 113)
    ​
30. Claims to have read a lot of Talk.Origins. Obviously reading for understanding, or even remembering, is not his forte. (Message 117)
    ​
31. Calls the statement that the Bible is not scientifically accurate a "wild generalization." (Message 121)
    ​
32. Argues that because Newton was a creationist, the modern evangelical movement can not be considered anti-science. (Message 125)
    ​
33. "I'm a conservative politically, so I don't believe in government schools." (Message 133) I had no idea conservatives didn't believe in public schools!
    ​
34. Confuses modern tolerance of irrational religious beliefs with persecution of ancient Christians. (Message 140)
    ​
35. Seems still not to understand the manner in which he earlier mischaracterized evolution. (paragraph 3, Message 159)

And here I enumerate the many content-free accusations of TheMystic:

1. He questions Jon's qualifications to comment. (Message 9)
   ​
2. Argues that the scientific method is invalid because it doesn't check itself. (Message 14)
   ​
3. Accuses jar of using a fantasy definition of science that ignores the real world. (Message 25)
   ​
4. "Those who try to find flaws in the design of life only embarrass themselves with their lack of design savvy (I'm an engineer)." (Message 32)
   ​
   PS: Interestingly, when rejection of a personal God among scientists is broken down by discipline, engineers measure lowest, biologists highest. When doctors are included, they measure pretty low, too.
   ​
5. Implies that we're not interested in truth because we've been indoctrinated into the scientific method.
   ​
6. "So to the original point of the thread, if creationism is a cult, science is every bit as much so." (Message 39)
   ​
7. "It's enough to make one swear off science altogether, as many a young student has done when first asked to leave their reason at the door of the evolution class." (Message 59)
   ​
8. "You're only confirming my opinion that evolution is just a mind game for the elect, an excercise in finding clever ways to defend the absurd. So the wheels start to sink in the mud in a familiar way: The evolutionist is not interested in my line of study and the evolutionist lost my interest and respect a long time ago." (Message 62)
   ​
9. Accuses Phat of bluster: "...and no amount of bluster can hide that lack." (Message 85)
   ​
10. Accuses John of not being a thinking person: "Not that I didn't think it possible that I might meet a thinking person on the other side, I have before, with whom we might mutually clarify our thinking on these matters. But it ain't you, dude!" (Message 101)
    ​
11. Takes note of my pig-headed arrogance and accuses evolutionists of holding masturbation orgies: "If this kind of pig headed arrogance is at the top I guess there's not much hope for the rest of the forum, is there? You, at least, have obviously not given any thought to a word I said. That's your prerogative of course, but I think it pretty disingenuous to call EvC a forum if it's just a place for evolutionists to masturbate together." (Message 104)
    ​
12. Shades of Randman: "You guys are congenitally unable to be honest about the quality of evidence for evolution."
    ​
13. Instead of responding to Crash, questions his credentials. (Message 120)
    ​
14. Tells me I may not be thinking very hard, or at all. (paragraph 1, Message 125) Questions my ability to think at the conclusion.
    ​
15. Dismisses a lengthy argument as a "silly thing to say." (Message 125)
    ​
16. Dismisses an argument from Phat as something "you're going to have to think a little more seriously about," but offers no evidence or argument other than "it's a whole lot more complicated than that." (Message 128)
    ​
17. I have no idea why he thought this response made any sense, and so I'll just present it without comment: "Oh, that's too funny. So it's not christianity that's the problem, it's FUNDAMENTALIST. 'course it wasn't *real* science anyway. This is entertaining, guys, you live in an interesting world!" (Message 132)
    ​
18. Responds to a lengthy information-filled post with, "I'm getting a little dizzy between "the definition of science changes" and "Ali-somebody destroyed Arab science in AD 1100)" and resisting the urge to just bust out laughing at the insanity of it all." (Message 141)
    ​
19. "You are so cocky that you can't conceive of an honest disagreement to your enlightened mind." (Message 145)
    ​
20. Dismisses a lengthy argument from me as nonsense, and perplexingly accuses me of not defending the argument despite that he had never engaged the it. Somehow equates Tyson's talk with a religion. (paragraph 2, Message 145)
    ​
21. "So maybe you're just saying all this to impress your friends on this site, but you're only showing me that you're a sloppy thinker." (Message 159)
    ​
22. Equates pointing out his errors and ignorance with intolerance: "In my opinion, your intolerant attitude is the dangerous one." (Message 159)
    ​
23. Equates the treatment of him during the thread to bigotry: "You'd think I was trying to walk into a whites only restaurant - you simply can't get past whatever stereotypes somebody has drilled into your head." (Message 164)

--Percy

Except that the destruction of Christianity is not a goal. What is desired is a very small thing, that religion confine itself to issues of faith. Science, like plumbing and cooking, is not an issue of faith. Fundamentalists should not be lobbying school boards for science class time for their religious views on origins, and their attempts to dress up their views as science and treat science like a marketing campaign is becoming increasingly obnoxious, not to mention increasingly contrary to the traditional Christian principles we in western world hold so dear. Either this is really deep or really misstated. What is the threat of Sam Harris types to science?--Percy

According to a truthdig interview, Sam Harris is trying to persuade "the religious-minded people of the world into abandoning faith-based belief systems, which he argues could soon lead us to apocalypse." I think you have him sized up accurately.But it isn't just Christian belief that it his target - it is all religious belief. He is as opposed to the evangelical efforts to move religion into schools as he is to religions that cause educated men to fly airplanes into skyscrapers. When it comes to opposing religion, he's equal opportunity.Some scientists, like Lawrence Krauss who you mentioned, believe it is only a matter of education, and perhaps he is right. At least he has a proposed solution. Harris seems to be saying that it isn't just a matter of education, and this view must also be given credence, because, as he points out, a number of the men involved in 9/11 had college degrees.Scientists would be content to leave religion alone if religion would leave them alone, but it doesn't, as the examples of creationism and 9/11 make clear. I fear that world fundamentalism may have wakened a sleeping giant, for secularism is marshaling its forces and becoming organized as never before. Scientists who can work in safety in their labs and travel safely to conferences and rely upon public education to do its job by providing a reliable stream of educated college freshmen could care less about religion (proportional to the level of their own personal religiosity, of course).But scientists who find themselves confronted by an endless stream of freshman with no clue about the unifying principle behind all of biology, or who have to witness their country being drawn into pointless overseas adventures because of overreaction to religious terrorists, or who have to worry about being shot by fundamentalist extremists if they are doctors, can get sort of fed up after a while.I'm sure there will be another significant confrontation in the courtroom between science and creationism sometime within the next 10 years, and I'm betting that this time it will be a doozy. The outcome that I think American evangelicals haven't anticipated is that the more successful the efforts of organizations like ICR and the Discovery Institute, the greater may be the eventual backlash. Potentially you could lose your voice in public education.--Percy

But with religion it's all dogma, isn't it? I've been watching about a third of a session per night (I'm about to start Beyond Belief 2006: Session 3), but maybe you can give me a preview regarding Harris's views. How does he distinguish between good dogma (the Golden Rule) and bad dogma (Genesis is a literal account of creation)?--Percy