Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!

Answers in Genisis: Moon dust and the age of the solar systemThus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.

Websters writes:cult \"klt\ n 1 : formal religious veneration 2 : a religious system; also : its adherents 3 : faddish devotion; also : a group of persons showing such devotion ” cult”ist n

Jon writes:Creationism is NOT science. Not just because of the "evidence" or the way it is "gathered" (we all know it is just made up), but because of the fact that it is driven by what those at the head of the monster tell everyone else.

Jon, do you think that Biblical Creationism is only an issue due to education? Is it that some parents are brainwashed into thinking that there is an evil conspiracy afoot in the education system to brainwash their kids into turning atheist?

The only place we see this kind of behaviour is in a cult, not in a laboratory.

I don't buy this urban legend about some sacred 'scientific method'.

It is more of a de facto standard methodology for reaching reliable conclusions about the world.

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

We know it is reliable because of the tenets of prediction and replication.

The basic scientific method, outlined above, may be modified if further (it has evolved over time) if it is discovered...

if we are able to get the same results when many different scientists attempt to replicate results, then we can reasonably consider the method reliable.

In other words, the scientific method is as it currently is because it works very well.

TheMystic writes:The anti-creationists take great comfort from the idea that they have some superior method of discovering truth and I think it's a very serious logic fallacy.