Chick tracks misrepresent the intellectual veracity of scientists

I wonder, L-M, if that trait of many creos is just another manifestation of their common tendency to take anything that their particular authority says as *The Truth*. Willowtree, not to pick on him now that he's gone, seemed to regard anything Gene Scott said as absolutely unassailable - the very mouthpiece of YHWH on Earth, by all appearances. The typical Christian fundy will claim that this sort of truth is all from the Bible, but very frequently will filter this through another entity before passing it on to the rest of us - Dr Scott, or AiG, or whatever. What their source says is, in their view, incontrivertible and the rest of us should just accept it, already!I kind of put this phenomenon up to the apparent worldview, or mode-of-knowing, among fundamentalists, that Authority is superior to reason or knowledge. I can't bring myself to an understanding of how people can function like that, but I know a lot of 'em that seem to do so.

I didn't express myself too completely or well last post.
What I was thinking toward was that the standard-issue creationist puts such stock in the words of Authority - Bible, AiG, whichever - that they just assume that everyone else does, too. I get the impression, as you say, that this sort of poster thinks that we Evilutionists just don't have their little piece of (dis)information yet, but that as soon as the tidbit with its authoritative source ("some scientist said...") is presented to us, we'll recognize the wisdom there and convert. And when we argue against their factoid or its source, they have no clue of how to reply except to repeat the assertion or dodge the reply altogether. Either "well, it's still True" or "here's something completely different that's True."