Denouncing religions ? [New to debate]

I think you'll find that most YEC's adopt a "Big Tent" strategy. To wit, if a belief is anti-evolution - no matter how bizarre, outre, or even counter to their own tenets - they will provide at least a modicum of overt or tacit support for it. The objective, of course, is to discredit modern science as much as possible, especially biology. Then, and only then, will they turn on each other and rend the non-YEC viewpoints. It's a kind of "any port in a storm" and "the enemy of my enemy" strategy. An excellent book describing this strategy in more detail is Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel. Although geared more toward ID than YEC, it is still a good expose of the way the different anti-science movements see the issue. For them, it's a culture war, not a scientific one. You're right, of course. If there is going to be any possibility of legitimately arguing against evolution then it must be framed in terms of the invalidity of the theory (or at least major fractions of it). However, that would presuppose there is evidence supporting such a contention (or conversely, evidence falsifying or at least calling into question the mechanisms grouped under the ToE). To date, such evidence has not been produced. Secondarily, and equally important, a new theory that better explains the evidence must be put forward. My personal opinion is that this is an impossibility for YECs, since all they have is "Goddidit".

Hi jt, how's it going?I'll just address the points you brought up from my previous posts, and let others handle their own side of the discussion. I for one would be absolutely delighted if creationists would come up with some solid evidence for their position. Then at least there'd be something to discuss. Unfortunately, the vast majority of creationist argumentarium is based on attempting to poke holes in evolutionary theory, forgetting that the way to validate a theory is NOT to try and invalidate the other guy's, but rather to present positive evidence in favor of yours.In addition, although you state that creationists hold science in high respect, this respect apparently doesn't extend to actually using the methodology of science. To wit, science makes observations, and then develops a theory that explains them. Creationism starts with a priori acceptance of the Bible, and then seeks factoids that it can shoehorn into the Biblical accounts, usually by being very selective on what it includes, then bending, folding, spindling, and otherwise mutilating the factoid to fit the account. Worse yet, whereas science must by definition include all the observations in its theories, creationism deliberately ignores evidence that doesn't support (or worse, refutes) its claims.If you have evidence for creationism, please produce it. You'd be the first ever. However, the heart of the debate is centered around culture, not science. There IS no dispute over evolution in the scientific community. There is a great deal of debate over the details, but none over the fact.I think it might be instructive (but, unfortunately off-topic for this thread), if you could elaborate on the cultural aspects of scientific problems - which are not obvious from the "inside" - and especially what you mean by "dysfunctional scientific culture". Sounds like it could be an interesting thread.

Great! I'm having a ball, actually. Talk about a dream job... You're absolutely right - I completely misunderstood where you were coming from. Apologies. Just one comment, then, since we are in substantive agreement: I agree with you. However, the things that keep creationism alive and kicking are the pronouncements, pontifications, videos, marketing etc of the major creationist organizations (for the YECs, examples include AiG, ICR, etc, and for IDists the big one is the Discovery Institute). I concur that the "average creationist", especially those that come here, honestly believe what they've been told. It's the big organizations, with their slick marketing, that are the real targets of the debate. They're the ones pushing what jar calls the Christian Cult of Ignorance. Without them - and the pseudo-ammunition they provide their adherents - there would BE no controversy, IMO.In any event, welcome back - and enjoy your spring break.