Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!

If I could borrow a Sam Harris argument (see Beyond Belief 2006: Session 1, his talk begins at the 52 minute mark), religion is the source of many beliefs that in any other context would be considered loony. If you believe that pouring milk on your breakfast cereal and saying a few words over it can turn it into the body of Julius Caesar, then you *have* lost your mind. But if you believe that saying a few words over a wafer transforms it into the body of Christ at mass, then you're just Catholic. Quoting Harris, "Religion, because it's been sheltered from criticism, allows people, perfectly sane perfectly intelligent people, to believe en masse things that only idiots or lunatics could believe in isolation."Conservative Christians believe the Bible is scientifically accurate when it is not, and the problem originates there. Science classrooms no more indoctrinate students into a religion than a comparative religions class indoctrinates students into Judaism or Islam. It's ludicrous to see it otherwise. But because of the credence given scientific views in the western world, conservative Christians feel it necessary to counter those views by building an elaborate framework of misrepresentations that is neither science nor religion but simply falsehood.And if I could borrow from Neil deGrasse Tyson (see Beyond Belief 2006: Session 2), the danger is potentially imminent. Arabic science flourished from 800-1100 AD. This flourishing is why we use Arabic numerals. Arab science gave us the concept of 0 and named most of the stars, and it was Arab scientists who translated ancient books on an unimaginable scale, which is the primary reason so many ancient texts are available to us today.Arabic science ended around 1100 with a theological revolution led by the Imam Hamid al-Ghazali who believed things like math were evil. The Arab world was sent into a dark ages from which they have yet to emerge, giving us only two Nobel prize winners despite their 1 billion population, versus Jewish Nobel prize winners of 23% of the total despite their meager 13.3 million world population.Those of us who love science and progress look fearfully at the Christian evangelical movement, whose creationist offspring has not contributed an iota of scientific knowledge, because in it we see a coming dark ages.--Percy

My own? I'm:1) an undergraduate student in the biological sciences;
2) a former laboratory/field research assistant with the USDA, mostly in regards to western corn rootworm beetle and brown recluse spiders;
3) married to a Ph.D. candidate in entomology/molecular phylogenetics;
4) a long-time enthusiast of evolution, biology, and EvC forum.I'm not saying I'm an expert, although many who post here are. Quetzal, for instance, holds expert qualifications (terminal degrees, a body of published research) in the biological sciences. And I'm sure there are a number of others who I'm insulting by not being able to remember their names.But you've asked a great question. If you don't find our qualifications sufficient to simply take our word for things, then by all means, we're prepared to substantiate our assertions with primary sources easily accessible on the internet.

I suggest you look at the facts. Creationists never submit creationist papers to mainstream scientific journals. They instead hold their own conferences. Creationism has never made any contribution to science. It's sole goal is to disparage evolution in an effort to remove it from public school science curriculums.What rock are you living under to question almost every fact brought up? Yes, you're right, we should substantiate what we say with evidence, but is it your purpose to stymie discussion by requiring us to substantiate every little item? Do you really know almost nothing about the history of the creation/evolution controversy? Do you really believe that creationists can go in their corner, play for a while with finger paints, then emerge saying it is great art while declaring that anyone who says otherwise needs to prove it?Creationism did not emerge from a tradition of science. It emerged from a literal interpretation of Genesis, so of course it doesn't correspond to the evidence. Creationists do almost no research that qualifies as actual science, and it displays no intellectual honesty when it tries to hide these simple facts by declaring that creationism is as much science as evolution, and that creationists perform actual research. And they only contradict these claims when it is revealed that they actually want to undermine the foundation of science, methodological naturalism.What are the odds that an ancient mythic tradition would correspond to scientific facts discovered thousands of years later? And why do they need to anyway? Genesis is not a scientific text. It's an ancient people's remembrance of their search for their creator.The topic's title asserts that creationism is akin to a cult movement. I think we've already established that it is far worse than that. It is a broad religious movement that threatens to end scientific progress.--Percy

It is not an insult at all. Sorry if you take it that way. Just pointing out the facts. I am say that is NOT what the Theory of Evolution claims or that the evidence shows.Since life started as very simple organisms there had to be some increase in complexity. When you begin as a single celled organism it is impossible to become less complex. Yet even today, most life on Earth is still very simple, single celled or having only a few cells.The part that is absolutely wrong is the idea that evolution implies "better" or a direction.Both the Theory of Evolution and the evidence suggest that there is no goal beyond perhaps, living long enough to reproduce. What we see when we do look at both living creatures and the evidence of those that lived in the past shows creatures just good enough to get by.There is no evidence of evolution towards something "better" nor is there anything in the Theory of Evolution that suggests such a trend.The important point though is that you and so many other Biblical Creationists attack the TOE and Evolution without first finding out what it really says.Your post in this thread tend to show that you think that Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are anti-GOD and specifically anti-Christianity. That is again absolutely incorrect. It is another example of the Cult of Ignorance.One indicator of a Cult of Ignorance is continued opposition to non-existent issues.The Theory of Evolution is NOT anti-Christianity. That can be proven.The Theory of Evolution does not predict that dogs will give birth to cats.The Theory of Evolution does not predict that there is a direction towards better.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, Sammy baby, you lost me right there. Tell that to the christians being eaten by lions. Percy, somebody who makes the above statement is just not thinking very hard, or perhaps at all. Only somebody preaching to a very uncritical choir could get away with such a statement. You're just not going to give up these wild generalizations, are you? Sure, and let's not even consider what effect the rise of Islam might have had on the golden age of Arab science. Get a grip, man! I hope at some level you know how silly a thing to say this really is. Surely you know that great minds like Newton were creationist? Arggh, I thought you were a thinking person for a while there.

Kids should be exposed to everything, in my opinion, so that they can form their own beliefs and not be indoctrinated by their parents.

I am aware that Newton was a Christian but did he reject the methods of scientific inquiry of his day? What is your definition of a creationist, anyway? Give me a solid definition...so that I can understand why there is a debate to begin with?I would think that science would be science no matter if the scientist were a Christian, an Atheist, or a Jedi Monk.Why must creation science be a different type of science than secular science? This is what puzzles me.

I bet you don't have kids, do you? Someday you're going to have to think a little more seriously about this. I'm not trying to put you down saying that, just that it's a whole lot more complicated than that.

quote:

---

Arabic science flourished from 800-1100 AD. ... Arabic science ended around 1100 with a theological revolution led by the Imam Hamid al-Ghazali who believed things like math were evil.

​

Sure, and let's not even consider what effect the rise of Islam might have had on the golden age of Arab science.

---

Everything listed occurred AFTER Islam was well established. Science (although not in the full modern sense - that came much later)flourished under Islam until fundmantalist Muslims got control.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

My point is not that he was Christian but that he thought there was a God who got things started. His famed statement is something to the effect that gravity explains how the planets stay in orbit but not how they got there. I don't think he meant to exclude any theories about the formation of the solar system, just that such exquisite order was done on purpose. It doesn't have to be, not from my perspective. You've got to ask 'the other side' why it's not an acceptable possibility. I could write the response you'll get about how it's not real science, but that's their opinion, not mine.

You missed the main thrust of my post. Even if creationists were just propogating the ignorant and incorrect arguments against evolution and an old earth from the pulpit, they are still ignorant and incorrect arguments.No amount of special pleading or banging the Bible is going to change the fact that the earth is old, the fact that there has never been a world wide flood, and the fact of the nested heirarchies of life.The only people who have problems with these facts are fundamentalist christians. That the are ALSO trying to make this a public education and a definition of science issue is the only real controversy.I doubt you would object to a judge disallowing the teaching of holocaust denial in history class other than to say there are ignorant people who deny the holocaust. I doubt you would object to school boards rejecting the inclusion of timecube theory in science class. Why do you object to people voting or ruling on excluding nonsense from school.Sure parents should have their right to educate their children how they want to. They can choose to homeschool their children. If parent want to teach their kids that math and philosophy are the tools of the devil they can. If they want to perform the child abuse that it is to teach their children that the myth of a world wide flood then that is their right in this country. Just don't expect the rest of us to feel ashamed that intelligent people want to keep nonsense out of general education.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

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!

yes, i would object. When judges decide what is taught in mandatory government schools it is propaganda and tyranny. I'm a conservative politically, so I don't believe in government schools. That should start another bunny trail...

Forget about the judges then. Judgement is just an extension of the people deciding to make an effort to eliminate nonsense from their education system. What about the voting population, the school boards, and the curriculium boards? Many of these have taken up the torch to exclude the nonsense that is "Scientific" Creationism from schools. They have similary excluded a host of other things. Answer the question, what is the problem with people choosing to exclude nonsense from classroom? Do you believe that all ideas have equal merit and should be continually examined?Also, why should we not consider a movement, entirely motivated by dogma to the exclusion of all other ideas, a cult?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Yup. That is what we have been telling you. It is not Christianity that is the problem, it is the Cult of Ignorance. Again with the misrepresentations. Read what he wrote. The definition of Science, like all knowledge, changes over time. Modern science is, guess what, modern science. It is likely that a thousand years from now the process of science will be different than it is today.The first indication we have of Science as a consensus process using peer review and actual citation (as opposed to the, common at the time, practice of attribution) actually dates to around 800AD Islam and the first example of using experimental methods is again from Islam, found in the works of Ibn al-Haitham of Basra around 1015 in his tome Optics.Since then the process and methodology has changed over time and continues to change today.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion