Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!

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.

He went to work.In order to keep this thread on topic, lets determine what the topic is.Here are the points I gathered:

Creation science--how does it differ from secular science and the methodology of same?

​

Why the rift?

​

Is Biblical Creationism a movement with established guidelines?

Shoot, but I'm only grabbing a quick lunch break here.

Hey Phat, I think I lost the train of thought here. But remember, I'm not arguing that science is not useful, that is, doesn't produce results that we like, such as the bridge not falling down. Basically I'm arguing that if you have developed a methodology for building bridges there is no guarantee that method is useful for anything else. I'm trying to take the spotlight off method and put it on results. If we have to argue whether creationism is science we at best waste our time because science, as I'm vainly trying to demonstrate, has no hard definition. However, if we can simply argue about whether there is a God (with people who really want to know) and whether he created the world; that's an entirely different thing. In the latter case we start with the question and try to find suitable evidence and/or techniques for answering it.
Hope that's not a total non-sequiter...

What leads you to assume it *is* physical? We don't know WHAT it is from a physical science point of view. The ability to think is the one assumption that everybody must make in order to pursue any kind of study, so if we don't know the answer to the question then the whole of the physical sciences are an assumption. We may simply feel we are making sense and we are not. I know, this requires some serious out-of-the-box thinking, but when it comes to questions like the existence of God you've got to try. You have to be able to make the mental exercise of stepping back and saying, "what sort of mind would an evolved thing have vs what kind of mind would a created thing have, and which one do I have?" Or is there a third option?
To give an example of how something can be entirely unrelated to its medium, think of the computer screen you are currently looking at. Are you looking at words or dots of light? Without the screen you have no words, but words are not dots of light. So consciousness may have absolutely nothing to do with the physical and yet be dependent on it in our human circumstance.

If you had a pile of coins, and wanted to find those that were related, would it be reasonable to first separate them by country of origin?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

You probably think Don Quixote was a noble hero. Saddle up brother mystic... there is evil afoot.I suspect you really do believe in science. The test will be your next doctor's visit.

Not trying to be difficult, but what do you mean by 'related' - related in what way?

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?

That is what we discover won't we?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You're no doubt trying to go somewhere with this, but I'm not getting it. What do you mean by 'related'? Having the same parents? I've gotta have some idea what I'm looking for in this pile of coins.

But so far all you know is that it is a pile of coins. How they are related remains to be determined.How would you go about determining how they are related?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Proper Science? Who is the central authority of science that decides what this is? I think we'd be fine if it weren't for evolution. I'm pretty sure I would find evolution bogus whether I were religious or not. But if I disagree with evolution I am branded unscientific, I just don't understand the scientific method. I actually am naturally a sceptical, analytical, fascinated-with-science type of person but I get slapped in the face with this evolution stuff at every turn. It's enough to make one swear off science altogether, as many a young student has done when first asked to leave their reason at the door of the evolution class. I would say that the salient evidence here would be to identify the guidelines and show who is establishing them and how they are enforcing them. But I think it a pretty silly thought, right up there with theories about how George Bush planned 9/11.

I think you better just tell me what you're getting at. I don't know how I would find the parents of coins.