Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!

did you just imply that you're taught nonsense in church?

---

sure he was. as is anybody else who claims to believe in god, and believe that god created the universe. i'm a creationist. jar is a creationist. at least half this board are creationists.but it's entirely dishonest to claim newton because his various religious beliefs and statements -- but deny the others here who make the same claims. newton was a scientist and a mathematician, and he searched for natural explanations and laws for things. and only when he was unable to find them, would he leave it up for god. newton was a god-of-the-gaps kind of person, and his famous statements about god putting the planets in their orbits, and having to readjust them occasionally demonstrates that.

---

Of course Possibly the most important books in my life (was my longtime favourite fantasy author but shares that with Guy Gavriel Kay now) The night I finished White Gold Wielder for the first time (at age 14) was the moment I decided that being an atheist wasn't necessarily the right choice for me, and so began my life as a theist...

well, the onus was on the evolutionist, 150 years ago. now that it's pretty well demonstrated, the onus is on the people who fail to understand the evidence or are ignorant of the evidence to back up their interpretations.and yes, we do need to show the evidence, not insult people. but after a certain degree, if a person simply refuses to see the blindingly obvious, it's also no longer our faults that they are ignorant. ignoring the implications of directionality, it is. just not by you. "cats into dogs" is such an old creationist strawman, and really all it demonstrates is that the person making the argument does not understand evolution at all. in fact, if such a thing were done, it might require significant modification of the theory of evolution as it stands. here is some suggested reading. i have suggested this book to other people on this board before, and it is quite a fantastic overview of the history of life on this planet.it is nice and thick, full of a pretty good range of known vertebrate species. not a lot of information is given, as it is an overview. so you won't see things like reconstruction information, and it will not explain to you every principle of paleontological study employed by people who spend their lives studying it. you won't see proofs of things like geologic time or the law of superposition (take a geology class). but the drawings are fantastic, and there are so very many of them. flipping through, you should easily get a sense of how things are related.it is not the tree itself or the work-in-progress catalog of every last fossil (i can link you to a website with about half a million of them, which is some very small percentage and still really difficult to comprehend).but i promise you, there is a lot you're simply not aware of in evolutionary biology, and paleontology.

---

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

Well... would you be happy if the kids were being taught every theory put forth ever?Perhaps we're descended from aliens... or the world is phlat? There is also only so much time in a day, year, etc., for children to be learning. What good would it be to waste all that time teaching them every crack-pot theory out there? Wouldn't it be better to give them a deeper understanding of the truth?J0N

Several people here have argued that YEC or ID could be used as a counterexample to the scientific method. Such notions may be useful in showing the difference between the rational and the psudo-rational in a course or unit on logic, critical thinking, or philosophy of science.Somehow I don't believe being used as an example of sloppy thinking or even cult-type behavior was the original intent of AIG or ICR, but I say if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck.... Edited by anglagard, : subtitle

Egyptian scientists of their day may have claimed that the "shooting stars" they saw were droplettes of ejaculate from the gods. Now, they were scientists, and they did figure some things out, but does that mean we should start expecting people to believe that meteorite showers are giant sky orgies?It has been common throughout history for humans to attribute anything they cannot readily explain to gods or some other supernatural force. Over time, science has helped to get rid of these cop-outs and to discover the real and natural reasons behind the workings of our world.Newton was a scientist, true. And he made some discoveries in physics, true. However, just because he is right on one point, doesn't mean he has an authority whereby anything he says is automatically true. His arguments are still subject to the same rules as everyone else's: he must provide evidence in support of his claims. And besides, I believe a lot of his theories on gravity (if not all) have been surpased by Einstein. (someone will probably correct me on this... hell, it will probably be you! )I know you've been almost "stockholmed" by the Creationist movement; brainwashed to believe anything the "authorities" tell you without ever investigating it or critically analyzing it. I was there once too, and trust me when I say that if you remove yourself from it, step outside the box, and actually think about the polution you've been spoon-fed, you will soon realize that these people neither care for you, about you, or have any respect for the truth and the scientific method. Their agenda is their own needs; they look out for number one, all the while you and your pals are fueling the furnaces and making their wallets nice and phat!J0NEdited by AdminAsgara, : removed unnecessary extension to subtitle

I am a fool for allowing myself to be sucked into this, but you do know how to get my goat for some reason. I accused scientists of making up the family tree charts I was exposed to in my first evolution class, and you extrapolate from that, in the context of your above statement, that I accuse all scientists of making all science up. 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. No, until now I hadn't heard of Discovery Institute so I'm sort of wondering how I could be part of that group. But thanks for pointing it out, looks like an interesting site. Right, details would be off topic, so why do you accuse me of not knowing the details? Sounds like you're the one unable to focus, or simply unable to do anything resembling abstract thought. When I have tried to summarize evolution to a degree appropriate to this thread I am met only with scorn, not alternate summaries. Please quote for me the message where I said biologists are making up the data for evolution. I trust you know the difference between data and interpretation. I thought I was 'marching' into a forum. Check it out, up there in the right hand corner, 'EvC Forum'. 'Discussion and Controversy'. Then it says 'creation vs. evolution' over on the left. If this is really a site to promote evolution I think you should be honest enough to just say so, like talkorigins.org. Whoah, wait, I just brought up their site and am reminded they do the same thing, trying to bill themselves as some objective arbiters of what they actually consider a non-controversy. Yeah, that's what got me into their site in the first place, took me a while to figure out what it really was. If evolution is so settled and no rational person could dispute it, then there is no point in discussing it and the use of 'forum' is disingenuous.Looking at things from the other angle, if you guys have any desire to 'open the eyes' of blind people like me you better take some classes in human relations. I'm seriously thinking about donating to some of the organizations you mention here just as a public service to the cause of free speech. In my opinion, your intolerant attitude is the dangerous one.

I don't think anyone disputes your right to believe whatever you want. No matter how silly it might be. Nor is anyone trying to stop you putting forward your point of view. You can even give your money away to the organisations mentioned above if that is what you want to do.
I don't think anyone here would claim to have aproblem with any of that.However if you are going to assert that evolution is a misinterpretation of the available biological evidence then it seems fair enough to expect you to back that assertion up. Elsewhere if this thread is not the appropriate place.Rather than getting exasperated here I suggest that you put your money where your mouth is and start a new thread where you explain the details of why you conclude that evolution is false so that we can debate those details.So is creationism a cult then.........?

Yes, that is true. There are a whole range of moderators here: Creationists, Christians who accept Evolution, Deists, Agnostics and Atheists. There are also a large number of scientists and scientifically trained individuals. There are too few creationists here which is a great shame, but as you can see the level of debate is high, with a very strong emphasis on backing claims with evidence.If you know other creationists who would be interested in good debate, then please introduce them to the site and bulk up the numbers.

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

You say you had no conflicts whatever in anything you were taught. This is an admission, in context, that your education provided you with no training in evolutionary biology.You have not studied it. But that this area of biology is 'destroying science'... this, you know.__Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Yeah, it's contradictory all right. Am I brainwashed or unfamiliar? I came here simply as someone who sees that life was done on purpose, and 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. Maybe you can get your story straight for your next example. I'm signing off here, so don't write anything you want me to see. cheerio.

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