Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 12:59 PM
201 online now:
14174dm, caffeine, DrJones*, edge, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx (11 members, 190 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,458 Year: 3,495/19,786 Month: 490/1,087 Week: 80/212 Day: 10/31 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 188 (374885)
01-06-2007 6:17 AM


We meet tomorrow at 6:00
Though rare, Creationists have pulled out of certain debates admitting their wrongs. They generally say something to the effect of: the evidence doesn't support our opinion (but doesn't support evolution), there's always room for new evidence, and Creationists shouldn't use this point as an argument any more. Here is an example:

Answers in Genisis: Moon dust and the age of the solar system

Thus, 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.

It is this part of the "retraction" that I wish to discuss here, as it clearly points to Creationism being a "social movement" if you will, as opposed to an open-thinking investigation of the facts through utilization of the scientific method. It is as if these very powerful Creationism "pushers" are calling out to their following asking that they now behave in a certain manner.

Certainly, the use of such tactics is not becoming of a scientist, nor of sellers of a scientific theory. The Creationist leader sermons to his congregation:

"I would ask that you no longer use this as evidence when debating an individual who believes in an old Earth."

His flock somberly moseys on out of the meeting hall, and with them they take his suggestion, and never again do the poor brainwashed folk use his mentioned argument when debating an old-Earth proponent. Where's the science in this? It seems as if a small number of Creationists own the market on what is and on what is not to be used/brought up when entering into a debate with a real scientist. Since when is power used to convince people of scientific facts? Who are these men who think they can stand up behind a podium, tell their followers something, and have it instantly be made true?

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

J0N

Edited by Jon, : Changed Title & Added Subtitle.

Edited by Jon, : Removed Message to Admins.


In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminQuetzal, posted 01-06-2007 3:55 PM Jon has responded
 Message 5 by Brad McFall, posted 01-07-2007 7:48 PM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 01-08-2007 3:42 AM Jon has responded
 Message 9 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 8:17 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 188 (374968)
01-06-2007 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
01-06-2007 6:17 AM


Re: We meet tomorrow at 6:00
Hi Jon. I'm not adverse to promoting this, but I would like to ask you first what exactly you expect to accomplish with the OP? Who do you think/hope will respond, and in what direction? What specifically is the topic you want to cover over the next 298 posts?


"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

    New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
    Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Jon, posted 01-06-2007 6:17 AM Jon has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 3 by Jon, posted 01-06-2007 11:50 PM AdminQuetzal has not yet responded

      
  • Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 3 of 188 (375050)
    01-06-2007 11:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 2 by AdminQuetzal
    01-06-2007 3:55 PM


    Re: We meet tomorrow at 6:00
    Well.. pretty much that 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. There's no free thinking; no one coming up with new ideas. It's like a cult, a religion, no matter how much Creationists want to deny it.

    I just figured that there would be a number of people who agreed with me on this, and perhaps an equal number who disagree. Thought maybe we could get a little discussion going on what people think of the way Creationism pushes its followers to believe this and that... and often they switch back on the same evidence. There's no evidence to support it, and it's ALL based on what the leaders say. It's a cult.

    I hope that cleared it up :o

    J0N


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by AdminQuetzal, posted 01-06-2007 3:55 PM AdminQuetzal has not yet responded

      
    AdminQuetzal
    Inactive Member


    Message 4 of 188 (375166)
    01-07-2007 7:14 PM


    Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
      
    Brad McFall
    Member (Idle past 3106 days)
    Posts: 3428
    From: Ithaca,NY, USA
    Joined: 12-20-2001


    Message 5 of 188 (375180)
    01-07-2007 7:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
    01-06-2007 6:17 AM


    power vs social history
    Here is what Kant had to say about “retractions.”

    It seems to me if Creationists want to retract in suspenso without doubting the debate itself then there is nothing wrong with power plays during the time the doubt moves interestingly beyond a provisional judgment to one that ibecomes more than reflexiveif not conviction itself. The privacy to decide one way or the other needs be sustained in the process. Patterns however do not lie on determination.


    Click to enlarge

    quote:

    Click to enlarge


    Rather, I have heard Will Provine, an evolutionist say (last spring in a lecture on Intelligent Design and IDEA at Cornell)that he needed to “retract” a paper on free will, or rather his 'idea' that there is none, from concurrent publication with Creationists. If words such as “retraction” have any meaning at all he should not have doubted the public's ability to read but he should have let the will and power of the people decide. Is that the same as making something true by fiat? no. Just because a post is linked to another in the debate is not the last connection.

    Of course if telling others to not use "evidence" merely "because it does not suit my end and interest to decide," then yes, making *that* become true is against even common sense. It is not always easy to push a button and be on the inside of a creationist's mind when one is not one.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Jon, posted 01-06-2007 6:17 AM Jon has not yet responded

        
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 12159
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.3


    Message 6 of 188 (375254)
    01-08-2007 3:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
    01-06-2007 6:17 AM


    The Biblical Creationist Manifesto
    A cult, eh? :rolleyes:

    Websters writes:

    cult \"k€lt\ 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

    Well, perhaps you have a point. The term, cult has an interesting definition. Ken Ham is a charismatic leader in the field of Biblical Creationism, and he has stirred the pot quite a bit! He even publishes many childrens books on the subject.

    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.

    It is an information cult in that many Biblical creationists get their knowledge or information from other Biblical creationists.

    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?

    Edited by Phat, : clarification


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Jon, posted 01-06-2007 6:17 AM Jon has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by Jon, posted 01-08-2007 4:37 AM Phat has responded

      
    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 7 of 188 (375260)
    01-08-2007 4:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
    01-08-2007 3:42 AM


    Re: The Biblical Creationist Manifesto
    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?

    Yes.

    Edited by Jon, : Typing error.

    Edited by Jon, : Original edit was a correction on the wrong thing.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Phat, posted 01-08-2007 3:42 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by Phat, posted 01-08-2007 4:51 AM Jon has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 12159
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.3


    Message 8 of 188 (375262)
    01-08-2007 4:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
    01-08-2007 4:37 AM


    Re: The Biblical Creationist Manifesto
    People are, of course, free to believe whatever they want. Its only when the educational focus is diluted with beliefs rather than with empirical facts that it becomes an issue of national concern.

    So Jon, what do you want to prove here? That Biblical Creationism is entirely a cultic movement?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Jon, posted 01-08-2007 4:37 AM Jon has not yet responded

      
    TheMystic
    Inactive Member


    Message 9 of 188 (375276)
    01-08-2007 8:17 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
    01-06-2007 6:17 AM


    Re: We meet tomorrow at 6:00
    The only place we see this kind of behaviour is in a cult, not in a laboratory.

    So Jon, how many experiments have you yourself done? Is that how you got your ideas, or do you read books and go to seminars and all that? I don't buy this urban legend about some sacred 'scientific method'.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Jon, posted 01-06-2007 6:17 AM Jon has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2007 8:47 AM TheMystic has responded

      
    Modulous
    Member (Idle past 178 days)
    Posts: 7789
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 10 of 188 (375278)
    01-08-2007 8:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 9 by TheMystic
    01-08-2007 8:17 AM


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

    As well you shouldn't. The scientific method is not sacred, it has changed through time, and may well change going forward into the future. It is more of a de facto standard methodology for reaching reliable conclusions about the world.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 8:17 AM TheMystic has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 9:11 AM Modulous has responded

      
    TheMystic
    Inactive Member


    Message 11 of 188 (375282)
    01-08-2007 9:11 AM
    Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
    01-08-2007 8:47 AM


    Re: Scientific method is not sacred
    It is more of a de facto standard methodology for reaching reliable conclusions about the world.

    Ok, this starts down a familiar path. Would you like to take a shot at telling us what this standard methodology is and how you know it's reliable? The latter point (reliability) is really the essential question here. And why does it change? Is there something more reliable than the scientific method that tells us when it needs to be modified?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2007 8:47 AM Modulous has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 9:28 AM TheMystic has responded
     Message 13 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2007 9:44 AM TheMystic has responded
     Message 26 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2007 10:24 AM TheMystic has not yet responded

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 243 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 12 of 188 (375283)
    01-08-2007 9:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 11 by TheMystic
    01-08-2007 9:11 AM


    Re: Scientific method is not sacred
    quote:
    Would you like to take a shot at telling us what this standard methodology is and how you know it's reliable?

    From the wiki:

    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. If we are able to make accurate predictions, and 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.

    quote:
    And why does it change? Is there something more reliable than the scientific method that tells us when it needs to be modified?

    The basic scientific method, outlined above, may be modified if further (it has evolved over time) if it is discovered that the modification leads to greater reliability (as explained above) of results.

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


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 9:11 AM TheMystic has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 9:49 AM nator has responded

        
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10284
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 13 of 188 (375290)
    01-08-2007 9:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 11 by TheMystic
    01-08-2007 9:11 AM


    Re: Scientific method is not sacred
    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 9:11 AM TheMystic has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 9:59 AM Straggler has responded

      
    TheMystic
    Inactive Member


    Message 14 of 188 (375291)
    01-08-2007 9:49 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by nator
    01-08-2007 9:28 AM


    Re: Scientific method is not sacred
    Ok, let's start here:
    We know it is reliable because of the tenets of prediction and replication.
    Is this a freudian slip? Here's the dictionary.com definition of tenet: "any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement." So we know the scientific methods of prediction and replication are true because they are held by the scientific community? (Whatever that is!)
    I'm not just being pedantic here. 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.

    Now I hope you're not going to make me work too hard on this, but can you acknowledge that the study of evolution does not fit your wiki definition of scientific method in a number of important aspects?

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

    Yes, discovered how? Does the scientific method check itself? If so, it is unproven by the scientific method's own standards. If by some other method, what is that method?

    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.

    Reliability in the commercial world is generally defined as the ability to meet some pre-defined criteria. If you make the same mistakes each time you'll probably get the same results, so this isn't a very useful definition of reliable.

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

    This really isn't a very useful definition either. It really doesn't mean anything more than 'i like the results'. It produces useful products perhaps, or something like that, but it doesn't speak to science being in any sense 'true'.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 9:28 AM nator has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Phat, posted 01-08-2007 9:56 AM TheMystic has responded
     Message 17 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2007 9:59 AM TheMystic has not yet responded
     Message 19 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 10:08 AM TheMystic has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 12159
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.3


    Message 15 of 188 (375294)
    01-08-2007 9:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by TheMystic
    01-08-2007 9:49 AM


    Re: Scientific method is not sacred
    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.

    Just so I can understand you, do creationists (Biblical Creationists) have a method of discovering truth that is not the same as a typical secular scientist?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 9:49 AM TheMystic has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 20 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 10:10 AM Phat has responded
     Message 170 by John Cramer, posted 01-11-2007 12:47 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
    1
    23456
    ...
    13NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019