YECism: sect or cult?

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.

It isn't true. The difference is objectivity.ICR is wilfully ignorant. Their conclusions "just happen" to coincide exactly with their religious beliefs.EvC, on the other hand, has members who are atheists and members who are Christians, including different varieties of Christians. They are all able to set their biases aside when looking at the evidence. The Christians are willing to change their ideas on which parts of the Bible are true and which are not, depending on the evidence.To ICR, the evidence is incidental. It isn't something to learn from; it's a teaching tool.

Thanks for your honesty. For the record, I have personally never seen any reason to mistrust what you write about...even though you used to frustrate me regarding my beliefs..(though not as much as jar! )As I delve deeper into this sect of scientific creationism, I find that it cuts closer to home than I thought it did. Of course, as I have mentioned here before, I myself am more of a liberal Christian than many of my peers whom I used to attend church with. (I have not been attending lately as my church has moved farther away and I have had to take care of Mom)Additionally, I have many beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven.Ironically, this is the same situation regarding Biblical Creationism. In my mind, the difference (which I could be justifying to myself) is that evidence is readily available in regards to the earth, whereas it is harder to find solid evidence challenging the Bible.
The next organization which I am examining is the Creation Ministries International found at creation.com. In reading this article, I’m a New Testament Christian the claim is that the book of Genesis provides the litmus test for the basis of Christian belief. This is precisely what my old Pastor believed. If many of you recall, I defended him for his integrity while still questioning his beliefs.
Here are some quotes from this article: Thus I find myself faced with questioning more than simply the creationists. I find that the very belief which I was taught and accepted is being presented as the same issue.
Here the graph shows the Biblical cross references from chaper to chapter. The implication is that one cannot pick and choose what to believe in regarding the Bible. I have stated that I dont believe so much in a literal Bible...largely due to many arguments here at EvC, but I am now forced to conclude that not only YEC but all of Biblical Christianity in general has to be includd in this "cult" that we are discussing.The wind has gone out of my sails for now....stay tuned

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.

Are those actual cross-references or do they include made-up stuff like Jesus being the Messiah?

Creation Ministries International is the former Australian branch of Answers in Genesis and you might want to look at the split and what occurred then if you want to consider the question of Ken Ham's integrity.That aside, there is a huge leap from the existence of references to the literal truth of the text referred to. Matthew finds meanings in OT passages which simply aren't there in the original text, read in context. Paul's view of the Fall does not agree with a literal reading of the story in Genesis. In the first instance the literal truth is unimportant, in the second it is contrary to the point.The inerrantists, in insisting that a (mostly) literal reading of the Bible should be taken as being infallibly true are not - in my view - being truly Biblical.

Earlier, I was taught the difference between a premise and an observation. I was curious where I had picked up the idea of starting with a premise...until I read ICR’s Approach to Scientific Investigation which confirms what you have told me and which cuts to the chase about the difference between creation science and mainstream science. I am guessing that Faith also adheres to this model and thus refuses to consider any scientific evidence that does not originate from this premise. Just an observation of mine! I'm not ready to throw away everything I have been taught to believe, however. Apart from continuing this discussion with you guys, I need to pray.

Where is your evidence that He was not the Messiah? Quid Pro Quo, Dr.Lector...

You got me curious about Dr.Kurt Wise and so I began my internet search study on him. Despite his valid credentials in learning (Ph.D from Harvard) he states that he literally believes in YEC! I am going to have to study this more...and for the record, yes I am now being fueled by confirmation bias! Pray for me.

I agree - Biblical Christianity has nothing to do with your relationship with God and has everything to do with "believe this or else"... which is awfully cultish.

I didn't say He wasn't the Messiah. I said that the so-called "cross-references" in the Bible are made up. There have been lots of discussions of that - in appropriate threads.You said, "The implication is that one cannot pick and choose what to believe in regarding the Bible." Unless there is positive evidence that the "cross-references" are valid, one certainly can pick and choose. In fact, in the absence of positive evidence for the "cross-references", one is obligated to regard each story individually.

It is important to remember that Kurt Wise - who was trained by Stephen Jay Gould, even though Gould knew about Wise's beliefs - admits that his belief is religious and held in spite of the scientific evidence.Which really contradicts the idea that a recent creation and global Flood are "obvious" - at least so far as the empirical evidence will tell us.

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.

No, we don't.

Quite honestly, I tend to agree--at least partially---with what Wise says. One either accepts evidence as to their primary truth or belief. I have chosen to accept belief---at least in regards to the Bibles overall theme. Sometimes I think I agree with the denialists...this constant attempt to tear apart belief with evidence won't fly with me.