YECism: sect or cult?

When scientists talk about conclusions it is couched in the language of hypothesis testing which includes a null hypothesis, the conditions under which the hypothesis is rejected. This is what creationism lacks and why their claims can't be considered an interpretation in the same way science interprets evidence.Science is the practice of trying to prove yourself wrong. Creationism is the practice of trying to not prove yourself wrong. That is where they part ways.

Creationists are trying to claim that their position is supported by scientific evidence. To make such a claim they have to use a scientific point of view and interpret the evidence scientifically. This means they have to have a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. They have to use objective criteria and methodologies for testing those hypotheses. If they don't, then it isn't scientific.For example, how do creationists determine if a fossil is transitional? From what I have seen, they claim that no fossil can be transitional no matter what it looks like. There is no fossil you could ever show them that they would accept as being transitional. That is not scientific. Scientists, on the other hand, measure the features of a fossil. They then compare it to other fossils and living species. If a fossil has a mixture of features from two other groups then it is accepted as being transitional. That is how real science works. I only know of one YEC spokesperson from a major creationist organization that I would consider to be honest, and that is Dr. Kurt Wise. He freely admits that the evidence supports evolution, but he is a creationist because that is what his religious beliefs require of him. I don't know of a single other YEC spokesperson that has dealt with the evidence honestly.Does this lead to a bias? Yeah, it probably does. When 99% of a group are verified con artists, it is pretty hard to ignore previous experience when you meet a new person from that group. With respect to YEC spokespeople from creationist organizations, there can't be meaningful discussion when one side is lying, and knows that they are lying. There can't be a meaningful scientific debate when one side has already decided that their conclusion will never change no matter what evidence is presented. For example, how can they even pretend to be honest when they use quote mines that completely distort what the source was saying? How could Duane Gish continue claim that human cytochrome c was more like bullfrog cytochrome c than chimp cytochrome c, even after being shown multiple times that this simply wasn't the case?As for forum goers, I do think that a lot of new YECs that come to forums like these are ignorant of the evidence and of science in general. I assume that they simply don't understand the topic, and strive to educate them on how science is done and the evidence that exists. We should expect both sides to address the evidence that is presented, and do so in a scientific manner.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

There is a big difference between beliefs that have not been scientifically proven and beliefs that have been scientifically disproven. It is the difference between faith and denial. This is where the issue of honesty comes up when dealing with YEC organizations. They claim that they are honestly interpreting the evidence in a scientific manner. In reality, they reject any evidence that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. That isn't science. You don't ignore evidence because it contradicts stories written in a 2,000+ year old manuscript, at least not in science. When they claim that they are interpreting evidence it simply isn't true.

This is where honesty comes in. An honest YEC, IMHO, would realize that the scientific evidence is stacked against them as much as the evidence is stacked against the Geocentrists. That is why I cited Dr. Kurt Wise as an honest YEC.It is possible to have very productive interactions and conversations when both sides are honest about the evidence. In your case, it could be a discussion about human psychology and the psychology of belief which could be a very interesting and fruitful conversation.What we need to differentiate between is faith based beliefs and the objective nature of reality as revealed by science. I don't know if we have to adopt Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria", but it may be close to something like that. What doesn't work is someone trying to claim they are on equal footing when they are not, such as claiming they have the support of scientific evidence when they are not using the scientific method.Also, some of us just like to argue (cue Monty Python skit). It is like an athletic competition for the brain. Overall, you are one of my favorite posters on this forum so I look forward to your posts. I have always found that you try your hardest to be upfront about your beliefs and very honest about them. I suspect that most everyone on this forum feels the same way.

Your knowledge of the early EvC Internet Debate Epoch is fantastic. I have always found those early episodes to be fascinating, especially from the perspective of human psychology. Those YEC's had to know they were lying, and their efforts to cover it up only further demonstrates this point.One of my favorite modern examples is Tomkins' claim that the chimp and human genomes are only 70% similar:https://answersingenesis.org/...panzee-and-human-chromosomesIt is all sleight of hand, and there is absolutely no way that Tomkins is doing this by accident. What he does is use an ungapped analysis which ignores indels. If a 300 base comparison differs by a one base indel his use of an ungapped analysis can result in much lower similarity than the actual similarity of 99.7% (299/300). There is no way that someone familiar enough with DNA databases and BLAST to do these comparisons could unknowingly leave out such an important parameter. It would be like a car mechanic not knowing that a car engine needs gasoline.