Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!

There is no algorithm that can be written that can just be followed by an unthinking machine. If you are looking for a step by step process that can be labelled the scientific method then you are going to be dissappointed.However scientific investigation undoubtably differs in it's methods from other forms of research.
The scientific method aims to reach objective truths. The best means of doing this depends on the exact nature of the problem under consideration. Prediction, falsification, experimentation, observation, error analysis and peer review are all methods of making scientific conclusions as reliable against the test of nature as is humanly possible.That is the key - That every effort to adequately compare a conclusion to the relaities of nature has been taken. The more difficult the test (e.g. specific measurable prediction is a good example) the more reliable the theory.Science is not a method. It is a human endevour with human aims. Those aims define the methods and those methods have been uncomparably successful at allowing us to understand and manipulate the physical world.To dismiss this success is to blindly ignore something which you either have not had the opportunity to apprecaite or remain willfully ignorant of.

The terms reliable, useful truth etc. that you are dismissing in your post are not being used in the way you presume.When something is said to be 'true' in science it does not mean that a roomfull of people have decided this to be the case (as you suggest)it means that when compared to the realities of nature through experimentation, observation, prediction etc. etc. it is found to be wholly consistent with nature.The test against the 'truth' of nature is what makes science different from all other disciplines.The success of this form of investigating nature is undeniableEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I would maintain that science cannot disprove God any more than it can disprove leprechauns.However it could potentially (and I believe to a large extent already has) relieve God of any physical role and therefore the need for any gods or other supernatural beings of any sort.

I think science indirectly addresses the need for gods.However that is not it's aim but an inevitable side effect of providing physical explanations to things that were once the domain of the supernatural.

I must admit I was more thinking of a physical role in the creation, evolution, formation of the universe, existence of the soul etc. etc. rather than the more day to day involvement you discuss.However I do not claim that science has provided explanations for all of these things merely that the scientific method is the best way we have of exploring these things and that the conclusions may well remove the need for any physical involvement from any supernatural being.It is this that I think Mystic is confusing with a desire on the part of science to "disprove" God.

Is it science with no prediction, no refutation (please correct me if there ever has been a creationist prediction or refuted experiment of any sort)and conclusions made in the absence of any physical evidence (for which creationists then desperately seek physical confirmation)When conclusions come before evidence it is the very antithesis of science.1) There are many holy books and many gods. Yours is no more likley or evidence based than any other.
2) We see evidence for evolution and natural laws
3) I am not sure how you conclude that a physical basis for consciousness necessarily results in some kind of unthinking responsive automaton?

Dude if I had a working scientific theory of physical consciousness I would be writing my nobel prize winning speach. Not posting on this forum.......How does the absence of a full explantion of consciousness lead you to definitively conclude that there exists consciousness seperate from the physical? Where is the positive evidence for any such assertion? All the evidence suggests quite the opposite (chemical effects on consciousness through drugs or hormonal balnces, the effects of physical brain damage, development of foetal brain etc. etc.)We are not even sure exactly what constitutes consciousness and there is potentially some argument as to exactly what/who we would attribute this property to.Where do you think this non physical based consciousness resides and how does it interract with your physical brain in any way?But to get back to the OP - Any faith based position must reach a point where it depends on an unquestionable unprovable fact (e.g. God existsor the bible is Gods word). At that point it becomes cultist in nature as the only way to propogate that "fact" is to indoctrinate others as to the indisputable veracity of that "fact".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Fair summary. My answers are as follows - It forms conclusions from non physical unverifiable sources and then attempts to define physical evidence as supporting these conclusions. This is the very opposite of proper science which forms evidence based conclusions and then sets out to test the accuracy and truthfulness of these conclusions against nature by the most stringent tests available. Because many creationists genuinely do not understand the difference. Because their view of nature is shaped by their religious beliefs they automatifcally assume that the opposing view of nature concluded by science is shaped by the beliefs of the secular and godless rather than being the result of evidence based research.In other words they assume that science concludes a secular world view on principle and then seeks evidence for this conclusion in the same way that creationists do the opposite.
They presume that scientists are behaving in the same way that they are and therefore see themselves as persecuted when their upside down, inside out form of "science" is derided and ignored. I would (controversially) argue that any organised faith based position is to some extent (the propogation of that faith).
However biblical creationism definitely is in a much more concrete sense. They see themselves as fighting the enemy of established science where this contradicts their world view and, as a body, have mobilised behind certain ideas, positions and figureheads to this end in a very cultist manner.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling etc.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If the physical can indisputably affect consciousness (drugs, brain damage, foetal development, death etc.) then there must be a physical basis.How can you possibly conclude otherwise?If consciousness has no physical basis how can a brain-damaged or drugged individual have such startling change of consciousness?

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.........?