Creationism (and Intelligent Design) advocates are necessarily liars

On the surface, CON appears to have valid arguments against my assertions. Unfortunately, CON's points don't go very deep. His assertions seem to hinge on the idea of "the bible" and that creationists don't necessarily need to believe in the bible to be creationists. I will concede that his assertion is true. However, let's separate what is from what could be. First of all, we don't have a series of Hindu creationists and other mythological religions (Greek, Viking, etc) pounding on the doors of our educational institutions and insisting on "equal time" for creation-science. What is currently seen as the creationist movement is completely made up of various ultra-conservative sects of judaism, christianity, and islam. All three have their roots in the Old Testament, all three are considered judaic religions, and all three are interconnected through both religious beliefs and historical background. Be that as it may, if CON wants to reject the idea of these three being "biblical", I can understand that position, as I left the door wide open to that argument. However, let's look at that argument one more time: Essentially, CON has done nothing more than a reverse version of the "True Scotsman" fallacy, by making the creationist group broader in scope. Essentially he has undermined the concept of biblical inerrancy by removing the supposed dependence of whatever religion in the bible. However, I would like to point out that BOTH OF US can play that game. If CON insists on playing by that rule, then clearly it should also be applied to my side of the argument. Simply substitute "bible" with the words "religious text" and any particular religious group being mentioned by a more general term (e.g. "orthodox religious believers"), and we will quickly find ourselves right back with that pesky little idea of inerrancy. Ultimately, no creationism comes from science. None of it comes from observable phenomena, none of it is born in a lab under a microscope, and certainly none of it has ever appeared in peer reviewed scientific journals. Not one assertion even survives a peer review from members across different religious backgrounds and countries. For example, Indian Hindu folklore has several different creation ideas, none of which are even known to the average American Baptist Creationist. Hence, it must come from some other place, other than mutual observation and deduction. My position is thus: It comes from make-believe and religion. It comes from a group of people agreeing on some completely made-up story of how things come to be, how they "poof" into existence, and then running with it until a critical mass has been achieved, and we call it "religion" and "dogma". Please note how even our very own US constitution plus several other countries' laws agree with the idea that such concepts are not science. Witness how we now have laws in place that insist on the separation of church and state, similar to what many other countries have done. Read Kitzmiller vs. Dover, for example: A judge (conservative, I might add) has never made such a condemning statement at a movement before - "innanity". Let's see what science is, or more specifically what the scientific process boils down to: It is the observation of natural phenomena which are peer reviewed for accuracy and to remove bias. It is a process by which new discoveries are filtered and tested against other ideas, observations, methods, and theories. At it's core is the idea that THE TRUTH is the same, no matter who observes it. I'd like to mention this in particular for all our biblical (see above) readers, because essentially, the concept of "BIBLICAL TRUTH" and even "ULTIMATE TRUTH" (aka: "Revelation", "Gospel", "Commandments", etc) , when compared to this scientific standard actually do turn into nothing more than word games. As I have pointed out before, and by the way, this is true for more than "just the bible" - it is true of EVERY RELIGIOUS TEXT - there are inconsistencies. Not one deity was ever found on Olympus, not one rabbit ever chewed its own cud, and not one giant turtle ever held the world on it's back. Wotan never carried the dead to the afterlife, we don't have a single photograph of Chinese monkey-gods, and even the great Cetan hasn't been added to our science journals even though every Lakota knew of him. And yet, we have Creationists actively engaged in attempting to explain existence in terms of make-believe deities. Clearly, none of this has ever been observed, or even remotely sensed, but instead it has been reported in various oral traditions and texts even though anyone with half a clear mind would easily discern these creation assertions to be fantasy. Especially if this person was not indoctrinated in that particular religion, but instead indoctrinated in a competing religion. Thus, the creation stories all appear to cancel each other out by virtue of not being compatible. As I've stated before: When you have contradictory statement before you, there is only one of three possible outcomes in light of scientific truth. (a) The first statement is true and the second is false. (b) The first statement is false and the second is true. (c) Both statements are false. Given that creationist assertions pretty much all come from the ether that is "imagination", clearly they are false; Regardless of what religion they come from. I suppose the idea could be forwarded that an "atheist creationist" somehow wiggled into this debate. I would like to point out that this is patently wrong, as for someone to be an atheist one would first have to not believe in deities, which are a necessary component of any Creationism idea. You can't have it both ways. I need to raise the question: Separate what IS from what COULD BE. We have religious zealots at our doors today pounding away at science and politics. Witness how our 2012 Presidential GOP candidates responded on public television when asked about their "beliefs" regarding evolution: Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum openly raised their hands for "creationism"! We're not talking about anyone's views on Zeus still being in charge, but we are talking about world leaders who may have their hand on the BUTTON deciding what is going to be our educational policy for years to come. Do we really want leaders that openly profess that they trust in make-believe of religious creationism rather than factual science? Imagine applying this type of logic to finding weapons of mass destruction in a desert country like Iraq? But wait - didn't one of our creationist Presidents do just such a thing, despite the intelligence agencies decrying the lack of evidence for months prior to the war? Or in other words, aren't we currently still paying for the concept of decisions based on "made up belief" vs. factual scientific data right now? Lastly I have to take aim at your ridiculous assertions that we owe our scientific knowledge to our wonderful church or that the entire story of Copernicus' suppression is bunk. Check the date on which Copernicus' book was finally released. He worked on it for thirty years of his life. He died the same year that it was published. Or in other words, he feared publishing it while the church could punish him: He was a catholic in a protestant region. He had already been questioned by several inquisitors and spent the last few years of his life under constant ridicule by protestants. A little known fact is that Copernicus wasn't even original in his assertions. Heliocentricity had been around since at least Philolaus in the 4th Century BC. There were numerous attempts between Philolaus and Copernicus all of which failed - not just because of mathematical errors, but many times for nothing more than religious and philosophical differences (and yes, lighted pyres were often involved). It is also a well published fact that the Christian movement clearly aligned itself with geocentrism in the 2nd century. The relationship between religious dogmatism and centuries of erroneous modeling is so deep it oozes from history like a thick ketchup. In addition, your assertion that religious schools are responsible for our scientific gains is simply backwards. Remember that Greeks and Romans had schools which did not require religious affiliations. All of this was destroyed when Rome fell, and nearly forgotten. It was not revived until ~800 AD under Charlemagne (aka: Charles the Great), who reopened something akin to schools, but only with the aid of the clergy, which until then had become the keepers of knowledge by continuously purging all other rival factions. I could go into the papal edicts of the 12th century against the Jews as proof of willful destruction of competing beliefs, but I promised not to point fingers. A perfect example of what happens to science when religion steps in would be to look at Islam. Prior to Islam (~640 AD), the Middle Eastern Region led in mathematics (arabic numerals), astronomy (most constellations have arabic names), medicine, etc. http://www.youtube.com.... Neil Degrasse gave a lengthy talk on just such a subject, the link will take you to a shortened version of the video. If you think that somehow the West was different, I would like to point out what every history class will tell you: It's called the "Dark Ages" because the church reigned supreme. It's called the "Enlightenment" because the church retreated from several different positions in light of the ancient version of the internet; We know it as the printing press. Once Martin Luther made copies of the bible available in native languages, all hell broke loose in Europe, and the Catholic church has never recovered from those losses. It was only in this atmosphere of religious retreat that science and medicine were finally able to thrive. Even today - and still not in the Middle East.