Skip to comments.Does evolution contradict creationism?
Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...
Now that you know everything, I predict a long and disappointing life for you.
So you're really a fortune teller?
So you agree that since Evolution has legions of logical and evidentiary errors that it is overly charitable to call it "Theory"?
For the benefit of the lurkers I will explain your joke, just in case they think you have made a telling point:
I didn't explain that if scientists are able to find logical or evidentiary errors in the hypothesis then it doesn't get accepted as a theory. This was so obvious that it didn't need saying. You humorously chose to interpret this backwards.
Scientific hypotheses have passed this test and moved a step closer to becoming theories when scientists cannot find logical errors or evidentiary conflicts in them. The theory of evolution has passed this test and all the others that I mentioned in my OP. Scientists have not been able to find any logical or evidentiary errors in it.
What are you saying? That prior to Darwin there weren't any fossils? There weren't layers of dirt holding different kinds of rocks? What kind of unique scientific technology did Darwin haul out with him to the Galápagos Islands that was crucial in the formation of his so-called "theory"? So new and cutting edge that man had to wait until the 19th century before he could possibly have a grasp on his origins?
In the decades prior to Darwin geologists had begun to systematically analyse rock formations and the fossil record in a way that hadn't previously been attempted. They concluded a number of things from their observations:
1. The earth was very old; far older than a literal reading of the bible would permit
2. Numerous different kinds of creatures had existed in the past. Similar creatures appeared together in particular strata bands but not elsewhere in the rock.
3. The oldest creatures found (in the lower, therefore older strata) appeared to be simpler than the more recent ones.
This was part of what Darwin took to the Galapagos with him. Not a wonderful new instrument, but knowledge (the most wonderful instrument of all, in a way). Specifically the knowledge that the species living on earth had changed over geological time. His theory helped to explain those observations.
Another clue to the answer is contained in the question. The Galapagos contains wonderful examples of adaption through selection and Darwin was able to see these with eyes untainted with familiarity. Who can say how much this helped him have his "dangerous idea"? Very few naturalists had travelled round the world prior to Darwin because safe ocean travel was a comparatively new phenomenon, made possible by inventions such as the marine chronometer in the previous century, and improved understanding of safe diets on long sea voyages.
Further evidence that suggests that by the early 19th century evolution was a theory waiting to be discovered is that Darwin was not unique in his studies. Other naturalists were working towards similar conclusions but Darwin published first.
LOL!!! Do you stand-up work? Let me guess how you perceive the existence of the internet. (oh, this is priceless)
(snip comical fable)
You appear to be the one doing stand up, and very funny too. But your joke has little to do with what I wrote. "..some interesting analogies to evolutionary behaviour" is not the same thing as saying the internet grew entirely spontaneously by evolutionary processes. The science I was referring to in my first sentence was the vast body of physics that would collapse if young-earth creationism were shown to be true. (constant light-speed, sub-atomic particle behaviour, relativity etc)
Please don't project your the lack of intelligence in your posts by saying that there is a lack of intelligence put into the internet.
More ad hominems from the poster who gets upset if 10% of what he dishes out comes back at him.
OK, I see the required gratuitous insult, but I am searching... and I don't see your explanation or an attempt of a refutation (I guess "science" only requires insults)
Once again the poster who freely chucks around words like "liar" and "God hater" and "ape" as insulting epithets and who likens his opponents to Nazi leaders is thin-skinned.
... you look at the Grand Canyon and see billions of years of water running thousands of feet uphill
The Colorado River flows downhill last time I looked.
Yes, but the if you look carefully at a topographical map, you will see that the headwaters of the Colorado river are several thousand feet lower than the Kaibob uplift. I much prefer to hear your theories about "how water and rock interact" in such a way where a creek that is at lower elevation than the rock it is supposed to chew a mile's depth through accomplishes what it did.
The clue is in the word "uplift"
I am also intrigued by your theories in hydrodynamics of how these remnant tributaries break from the river, not lead to it. Don't rivers usually join not separate?
Not necessarily, no, look at a delta for example. But I am not aware of "these remnant tributaries" or what their purported significance is.
But no, you must scoff at the Creationist as you ignore the maps, ignore the fact that a huge basin lies to the north of the Grand Canyon, and that how the "rock" would break apart isn't so hard to understand when one considers the type of rock and the Creationist's simple and consistent with the evidence explanation of how not-yet-solidified "rock" would break apart when saturated with water.
Imagine a huge dam burst across Northern Arizona. Big enough to carry away billions of tonnes of rock in a short time. If the rock is strong it won't dig a huge canyon (as you implicitly acknowledge with your unsupported statement that the rock was "not yet solidified" when the canyon was cut), it will spread out and take the path of least resistance. If OTOH the rock is weak then the walls of whatever canyons that form will be shallow, not steep. Any canyon formed would be much wider and shallower. The rock needs to be strong to support the huge vertical drops that we see in the Grand Canyon but strong rock would not be cut away quickly in some kind of post-noachian drainage event.
I don't understand the 2nd Law??? Please! The second law states that in a closed system, the overall entropy must increase. This does not imply that the local value of entropy in a closed system must always increase. The local value of entropy at a given point in the system can decrease if there is an even larger increase in entropy at another point in the system. Entropy and disorder are not identical, by the way. Entropy is difficult to define in words, but refers to the amount of dispersion of energy. Concentrated energy sources represent lower entropy, whereas more dispersed energy represents areas of higher entropy. The correlation between entropy and disorder arises from a law in statistical mechanics which relates the entropy of a system to the number of microstates available to the system. Typically the number of microstates available to a system is a pretty good measure of the common sense notion of disorder, but it is not a perfect measure.
I am arguing nothing about the existence of God. My point is that for someone who is not convinced that God exists, Pascal's wager would not be convincing.
Not contradictory at all. The big bang theory is a very specific theory. It can and will be modified as new evidence comes to life. The product of this modification will be a new, very specific theory. That is how science works, and how it always has worked.
BTW, why do you assume that anyone believing in evolution doesn't believe in intelligent design? The two (despite your insults to the contrary) are not inconsistent. You must first understand that evolution does not go beyond the point at which the first living organism has been formed. The origin of life could be a result of intelligent design even if evolution is completely true. Furthermore, you seem to believe that evolution must necessarily proceed via random processes. Not true. The theory of evolution in its modern form states that mutation and natural selection is a primary mechanism (but not the only one) for speciation. It actually does not make any reference to purposelessness or randomness. The question of purpose is actually outside the realm of science. Science will never be able to determine whether there is purpose behind evolution. Please avoid such sweeping generalizations in the future. Not all people who study science and believe that the theory of evolution is an accurate and useful explanation for many observations in the biological sciences are "God haters."
I'd go further than that. The words "God haters" are unpleasant and emotionally loaded and have no place in this debate at all regardless of whom they are applied to. (unless Reuben can unearth evidence of a sect that specifically espouses God Hatred and show that members of that sect are posting here.)
I am not sure if someone has already posted this, but you may both find en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager interesting as it contains a number of refutations.
Perhaps He would punish them for believing in Him, but then not behaving well enough, while he let the non-believers off because "they didn't know any better"
"Many Gods Argument"
This is a very good argument, however I really don't see much of a choice. Unless the chance of God existing is zero, then there is still a better chance of believing than not believing. Regardless of the odds, If there is no god, there is still no loss from believing.
This doesn't follow when the beliefs may be mutually exclusive. Picking none may be not as bad as picking the wrong one (and may even get you THE REWARD for reasons like the one I suggested in the last paragraph) .
"The wager may also be criticised for requiring one to choose one's beliefs."
Like I said earlier, the actual argument does not necessarily support the existence of "God" rather the existence of a god(s). The thought that it only supports the existence of a Christian god is a strawman argument, which makes it an easier target.
I think the point here is that "choosing" to believe in one of the available deities is not a true option. We don't "choose" our beliefs in any meaningful way. They enter our minds like viruses. We may be persuaded by reason or adopt faith but such actions are rarely truly volitional in the sense that we choose what to have for dinner.
I guess I would call that total disrespect, if not outright hatred of the artist.
Part of what evolution is all about is to deny God as the creator...O, but in such a soft, reasonable sounding way. But hatred and denial are kissing cousins. You guys want it both ways. To seem so intelligent, so sophisticated, and yet you disguise, even to your own selves the distaste for a ever present, omnipotent (and here is the real problem) an MORAL God.
To whom all human beings will eventually answer. Including spitting in His face and denying him the wonder and awe due Him for this marvelous, incredible, and beautiful creation. The creation was made to point back to the creator, so that you in your dim little intellect might grasp the awe and splendor and beauty that IS in God.
Actually your sin is that you have dull and stupid minds incapable of wonder, too stingy to worship, and too self-centered to admit a mind greater than your own. You would rather revel in tedium and process, and pointless semantics over minutiae, rather than just enjoying the painting and getting to know the artist.
I suggest that you calm down a little, and wipe the spittle off your screen.
Apparently you not only know the mind of God. You also have the startling ability to see inside my mind, and the minds of other atheists, and believers who accept evolution (and want to use the intellects that they believe God gave them to further their knowledge of His creation). What incredible arrogance and presumption you exhibit. I can't speak for other rationalists who accept the scientific method, but you are dead wrong in almost every way in your assessment of my mental attitude.
Do you you have any actual arguments, or is empty hysterical rhetoric your speciality?
Well I guess that's answered me, you do only have empty rhetoric. At least that post wasn't quite so hateful.
Which part bugged you the most? That about your dim little intellects? Or the one about the infatuation with word games and biological processes? Nothing like the pride of intellect among evolutionists...its the force driving you, which at least can be identified, unlike the blind forces of evolution. I am not holding my breathe for any evolutionist to describe those forces and how they operate, or have produced a single species.
You repeat the petty insults hoping to goad me into a response. You had already made your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution and your intention not to ever learn anything about it quite clear in your earlier debates with Shubi so you didn't need to repeat that either.
Now I may be way off base here, but if I understand correctly, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Seriously, if the people had a chance to believe in him, but didn't, then the god(s) would punish the people for refusing him to begin with. Christian beliefs often teach a doctrine that covers this: If there's someone stranded on an island, and dies having never heard the gospel, would he go to hell? The general idea, is that if this person looks at his surroundings and believes there is a god, then he would receive a reward of sorts. This is only possible if someone has never had the opportunity for salvation according to some Christian beliefs.
This argument and numerous arguments like it presume the conclusion that all possible Gods would consider belief to be a rewardworthy state of mind. Someone who believes may exclude behaviour from their lives (such as (for the sake of argument) open-minded investigation of the mechanics of the universe) that God might consider more praiseworthy.
An alternative argument is that God may not care one way or the other whether we believe or not but Anti-God (an inferior but very powerful being who God also doesn't care about) punishes believers only; and in such a situation it is belief that carries the negative payoff.
"This doesn't follow when the beliefs may be mutually exclusive. Picking none may be not as bad as picking the wrong one (and may even get you THE REWARD for reasons like the one I suggested in the last paragraph) ."
I cannot agree with this either, why would the deity you are characterizing punish humans for at least seeking him out? Answer: He wouldn't.
Some faiths are very clear that adherents to rival faiths get worse punishments. Just because you don't believe that of your God it doesn't make it impossible.
I will agree that Christian beliefs reflect that if someone has the opportunity to convert from one religion to Christianity, and never do, then they will receive eternal punishment, but I also believe that if someone never has the opportunity to convert, then they would still receive a lesser reward.
That may be your belief but I am not aware that the bible has anything to say on the matter.
"I think the point here is that "choosing" to believe in one of the available deities is not a true option. We don't "choose" our beliefs in any meaningful way. They enter our minds like viruses. We may be persuaded by reason or adopt faith but such actions are rarely truly volitional in the sense that we choose what to have for dinner."
there are contradictions to both sides of the argument here. For example: in Israel, one might have the option of becoming Jewish, or Muslim, or perhaps even Christian, but in a place like medieval Europe, you might be forced to be a Catholic. However, in modern society, I can think of very few scenarios where this actually applies. If you can I'd be interested to hear them.
I think you may have slightly misunderstood me. I am not talking about membership of a church, or the appearance of belief (unless you think that "faking it" may be good enough for God, which I suppose is as valid as any other position). I am talking about true inner belief. History shows that numerous medieval europeans (up to and including some Popes IIRC) didn't actually believe in God at all. Although they were members of the church that did not reflect their beliefs. My contention is that inner belief (surely what Pascal's reward is available for if belief is relevant at all) is a state of mind that cannot be chosen. You cannot choose your beliefs. They happen to you.
I'm not to fond of the dinner analogy you use either. Much better to use one like opening a door before you walk through it. If you don't open the door, it's gonna hurt on the other side. And if there is more than one door (I'm not saying there are necessarily, but "if") picking which door to open.
If the doors are beliefs, I maintain that you cannot "choose" to open any of them. I could tell you today that I'd decided to become a Christian in order to benefit from Pascal's wager (if I didn't accept the refutations at the top of this post) but I still wouldn't believe. You can't make yourself believe something.
Just curious... I suppose I could figure it out from reading all your posts, but are you affiliated with agnosticism or atheism, or any religion at all?
I am an atheist. Nobody has shown me an argument that convinces me that any deity exists, though I don't discount the possibility. I think that wikipedia characterises my position as "weak atheism".
You make the exact point that I make. Historically Pascal's wager has been used to argue for the existence of the CHRISTIAN God. My point is that this is a very weak argument for Christianity in that it is also an argument for ANY religion. If Pascal's wager is the only reason to believe in God, you won't be led to a belief in God as worshipped by Christians. In fact, Pascal's wager leads one away from Christianity, as any argument that supports a belief in more than one God is supporting a belief that is anti-Christian.
So let's get this straight, you do agree that by your own lights you hate Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy? Or do you believe in them? Which is it? Presumably you also hate Vishnu, Kali, Oriris, Ra.....(snip long list of alternative Gods that I suspect you don't believe in). What a hateful world you live in.
And where does religion belong? Who put YOUR world view in charge?
Let's try out this mind-reading thing that you are so good at and see if I can do it too. You believe that your religion belongs in the home, in church, in the schools and universities, in the workplace, in the civic offices, in the courtroom... ah yes, the last group to try not restricting religion were the Taliban, with whose attitudes you have a lot in common. An absolute certainty in your own moral and spiritual authority, and a desire to impose it on everyone else.
You cannot get beyond what exists in front of you. You are enslaved by your focus on process.
This looks remarkably like a concession that you have lost the evidentiary and procedural argument.
You pretend you admire other men of intellect, but I have never met a scientist that did not think HE was the smartest guy in the room.
Jehu once again demonstrates his remarkable capacity to read the minds of others. Or perhaps he has simply never met a scientist.
Actually, Jehu may have been in rooms with just a scientist for company quite often. With comments coming from Jehu like, "Allele's are just the latest pseudo buzz words by evolutionists." (post #252, hilarious) it wouldn't take the scientist long to work out who the smarter person in the room was.
The conjecture that God must have intervened to originate life in the first place would not damage or invalidate the ToE in the least if it were shown to be true. In fact the belief that God started the process and then let evolution take over is quite a common one. Did you not know that?
As such you are practicing a faith, or religion. Therefor you are on MY territory and have to fight by MY rules. I have no problem with real science. Nobody has a problem with chemical formula's, Laws of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity Theory.
My apologies. I had thought that you espoused Young Earth Creationism (which is conflict with numerous areas of science other than the ToE so your statement that nobody is in conflict with the rest of science is incorrect).
However the repeated assertion of creationists that the ToE is a religion does not make it so. Presumably you understand that well over 99% of scientists (presumably the best judges of what constitutes science) the world over in all fields do not agree with your assessment that the ToE somehow has a different scientific status from other theories. In evidence I submit a list of 500 scientists including 2 Nobel Laureates who support the ToE, with the twist that all of them are called Steve (that name was selected as the filter in memory of Steve Gould). This keeps the length of the list down to manageable proportions.
Those things are real science, experiments can be setup in the lab to prove the math, or theory. And such science cares not one bit if you are a Christian, or atheist. But TOE demands you attack the central tenants of Judeo/Christian belief. Just because you do not do it in an obvious way like Islamo-facists, does not make you any less an enemy of my faith. They both have the same goal, (Islamo-facists, and evolutionists) the eradication of Christianity from the earth.
Numerous laboratory experiments and mathematical predictions have confirmed the ToE. Your use of the words "prove the theory" betrays that you don't understand the scientific method. No theory is ever proven.
Science is neutral about religion. You cannot be unaware that numerous Christians and many Judeo/Christian Churches and organisations representing a huge number of Christians support the ToE and therefore do not share your paranoid unsupported assertions that the ToE was invented as an attack on Christianity.
I am not sure. In any case I was not saying that a belief in God precludes one from physical investigation of nature. But some religions certainly do. It is not possible for a Young Earth Creationist to open-mindedly investigate the data and retain their literal biblical interpretations for example unless they adopt the nihilistic philosophy of omphalism (and at least two Creationists I know have indeed done so in the face of the overwhelming data that they now accept).
If nothing else, this "Anti-God" of yours would have revealed himself through some miraculous act, and taken on the role of a god. My argument, is that wanting to obey someones rules should never make someone angry. Therefore wanting to abide by the creator's rules should not make him angry.
My hypothetical Anti-God is a malevolent being who enjoys punishing those who have faith in God (who hypothetically doesn't care). To reveal itself would be counter-productive to its aims because it wants there to be as many believers as possible. It doesn't have the power of God but it has some kind of supernatural ability to harvest souls and punish them. You argument really amounts to the fact that you don't want such a being to exist and being a nice person you cannot understand the motives of such a creature (and no-one else does either), but our desire that such a creature not exist and our inability to comprehend its motives is not proof.
It's in one of Paul's letters I believe. I'm a little to lazy to look it up right now, but if you're really interested in fining out, try all the books in the new testament that begin with the word: PAUL.
Corinthians II 5 10 may be what you were thinking of, though it doesn't seem terribly specific to me. Perhaps you have a more detailed schedule of crimes and punishments elsewhere in Paul in mind.
Continued discussion about the volition of belief.
I think we are just going to have to agree to differ on this one. I don't buy any of your physical analogies of doors, or choosing to eat I'm afraid. The reason why I analogised with choosing what was for dinner was to point up that choosing physical acts is completely unlike what happens with beliefs.
You accept that beliefs can be chosen. I don't. Further discussion of that issue is unlikely to be fruitful.
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Yeah, it's pretty strange that those who claim that we can choose our beliefs just cannot decide to believe that some people (like you or me) are not able to simply choose what they believe.
Judas was a Christian...for a while.
The meaning of the word "day," as in "24 hours" or "86400 seconds" depends on the relativistic inertial reference frame of the clock.
A clock at the center of the sun (i.e., deep inside a deep gravity well), or riding on the back of a near-lightspeed particle, would tick more slowly than one here on Earth:
A clock travelling at 99.99999999999997% of the speed of light would take 742,552 years and about four months to tick out seven days.
I asked an astrophysicist about this in a lecture about the Big Bang and the formation of stars - "when you talk about the universe being six to ten billion years old, you're using an earth-bound inertial reference frame, right?"
He answered in the affirmative, and it seemed like it hadn't occurred to him that time would have a different meaning in a far more dense universe in the early stages of the Big Bang, though maybe he was just stifling a burp from his lunch.
I wonder, too, what effect gravitational time dilation might have on the prospects for controlled fusion break-even on Earth.
Genesis 1:24 - God said, 'The earth shall bring forth particular species of living creatures, particular species of livestock, land animals, and beasts of the earth.' It happened.
Genesis 2:7 - God formed man out of dust of the ground...
It isn't seeking to avoid anything. It is a conclusion drawn from the evidence. I don't understand your theological argument I am afraid. I always thought that the fig-leaf symbolised Adam's loss of innocence and emergent self-awareness without which shame is impossible.
Maybe God worked by evolution...something I doubt since the only evidence that evolution occurred as given by agnostic...
and numerous believing scientists of course, a fact that you seem incapable of getting your head round
...scientists (whatever their first names) that I can discern is the continual squawking like maddened parrots: "Evolution is a fact, evolution is a fact." All the red-faced shouting does not make it so, but appears to me as the clenched-fists tantrum of a lot of spoiled brats.
All of the red-faced shouting in this argument comes from the creationists. For some examples study some of your earlier posts. Do you deny that the species living on earth have changed over time? (which is one of the facts of evolution as opposed to the theory). If you deny that you are denying much more science than the ToE, yet you have stated in an earlier post that it is only ToE that you take issue with.
Once again you, or any scientists named "Steve," are unable to give me a fair mathematical description of this "theory," that you would fight to the death to defend, something I find peculiar for "objective" scientists.
Where did you get the notion from that a scientific theory must of necessity have a mathematical description?
And I guess actual evidence does not mean much to evolutionists, but by your own admission, just a majority opinion. Which just reveals that you do not make up your own minds, (rather your minds were already made up, and you went looking for a confirming theory) but are impressed by numbers, and credentials, and need those numbers to buttress your faith.
The list I supplied is a humorous parody of a common creationist argument but it does make an important point. When you say that the ToE is religion not science you are calling the entire scientific community liars, fools, or lying fools. Yet you allow them to be right about everything else which seems a curious position. Creationists sometimes misrepresent that science is divided about the ToE or that ToE is in crisis which is not so. However science is not a democracy as you rightly point and it does listen to the evidence. Publish your evidence that the ToE is wrong and the 500 Steves and everyone else will switch their opinion and you win a Nobel Prize.
Name them, give me the math. Of course theories are not proven. But at least the evidence ought to confirm that theory to some degree.
And it does, to a degree that practicing scientists regard as conclusive as any part of science. Try this. Feynman's quote near the beginning is insightful (as one would expect).
But the fossil record (the beginnings and first basis of TOE) shows NO evidence of ANY transitory species, when there ought to be millions. Where are they?
Your statement is a common creationist misapprehension. Many transitional forms have been found. Whoever told you that there are no transitional forms is misinformed. Whoever told you that there ought to be millions of them is also misinformed. Fossilisation is an incredibly rare event.
Not to mention the complete inability of TOE to account for irreducibly complex structures. Or symbiotic life, or parasites. Or the complex behaviors of animals, some of them with brains far to small to have figured out such behaviors. From whence came all of this?
Natural selection is the answer to all of the above except irreducible complexity. Most modern informed irreducible complexity arguments refer to abiogenesis, about which the ToE has nothing to say.
And remember we are not dealing with just individual species in isolation, we are dealing with interlocking systems, all the way down to certain properties of matter and compounds that if THEY did not first exist, in incredibly exact proportions, no life could exist.
Curious that you should use this argument which is not an argument against the ToE at all. It is a argument for the existence of God commonly used by believers who accept the ToE (you know, that group of people that you refuse to acknowledge). You characterised the God of this belief as "Weak" and "Distant". Your much more interventionary God doesn't need conditions to be suitable in the general universe. He can do anything, right? So why would he bother to make the general conditions suitable?
"because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this "
The above is from the article Thatcherite cited. All arguments about the ToE not supporting Creation are just empty, moot and silly. As I have repeatedly stated, Creation is not part of the ToE. Thus, to say that scientists cannot believe in Creation or that Christians can't find the fact of common descent and the ToE compelling is just totally wrong.
I managed to find the Augustinian quote that I referred to earlier.
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
No need to apologize. I am familiar with the Augustine quote. You see, many of the church fathers are ignored for the sake of keeping the cult alive. I think there may be some security in having this "mystic" agreement on hatred for science. It is somewhat like the various heresies the early church stamped out, like gnosticism etc. They "know" the truth and there ain't no one gonna convince em otherwise. ;-)
...and with a straight face, I'll bet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.