From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: What makes a creationist?
Keywords: creationist
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:11:54 GMT

In article <ksiew.718902447@munagin> ksiew@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (steven kok-hsien siew) writes:
>  After reading the articles posted by several creationist,
>I get the feeling that creationist are a totally different
>spicies altogether.
> 
>This brings to mind the following questions.
> 
>1) Have anyone done a psychological profile of
>   a creationist? What are his motives? 
 
	I can only judge by the people who debate here that
the thing that seems to characterize most of them is that they
are moralistic control freaks and most of them are engineers.
There are some who either are scientists of one sort or other
or who are pursuing a degree in science but who are open about
being some variety of Fundemental Christianity. There have been
a couple of people from other persuasions.

	There are a few others who sympathize with anti-evolution,
who have their own pet theories of Aliens planting life on earth,
etc.

>2) Why do creationist put up arguements that even
>   a high school science student can find holes in?
> 
>3) Why do creationist keep bringing religion into
>   their "theories"? Can't their theories stand on
>   their own.
 
	I thnk that 3) answers 2). Quite often a religious
belief either openly theistic or some varient of vitalism
drives the rest of the argument. The thrust of this kind
of thinking is most often to turn science to either confirming
the pet prejudice that life is somehow fundementally different
from non-life, or that it had to be created, or to not disproving
it.

>4) Why do creationist keep insisting that the bible
>   is the literal truth? 
> 
>5) Why do people "become" creationist in the first place?
>   What kind of people accepts these creationist
>   ideas?
 
	It is safe to say that nearly all people who call themselves
Creationists do come from a Biblical Inerrant or Biblically Literal
background. There are execptions, and there are other people who
can raise other kinds of objections to evolution but on totally
different grounds. The vast majority of people who have posted
here over the years either had open affiliation with Chruches
that aspoused Literalism, or they made the same arguments while
not admitting the source. A couple of people made great claims
that they were not making religious objections to evolution while
at other times they would make statements about religious belief
that carried the same prejudice as those who were more honest
about that influience.

	It is worth mentioning that non-Christians have voiced
Creationist ideas, but it seems that the most vocal people supporting
these views are overwelmingly Christians, and of these, nearly all
are Protestants who draw much of their dogma from the Bible. It would
be an interesting exercise to try to guess why this is so. I have my
own theory which I will share if you want.

>6) What economic benefits do "crackpots" have in 
>   advancing their creationist arguements?
 
	Actually, I view Creationism as mostly a political strategy.
It is bad science  and bad religion, but it draws its appeal from the
same reactionary forces that are manifest in Conservative Republican
circles, and amny of the people are the same. The political agenda
is to separate a closed utopian enclave of people from the rest of
secular society. All you have to do is to go to Orange County in
California and note the number of Right Wingers and Seventh Day Adventists,
JWs, Mormoms, and Southern Baptists concentrated in one place to
see what I mean.

>Well, here are my questions. Feel free to voice your
>opinions. 
> 
>Steven K.H. Siew
> 
>*** Thank God, I'm an atheist  
> 
>ps: If you want some entertainment try reading
>    old creationist text published in the 60s.
>

	Yeah, they were less sophistocated about hiding the real
agenda behind the opposition to evolution. In the 1980's people
learned to lie about all this, produce a pseudoscience, and conceal
the most important goal: radical reform of society along theocratic
grounds.

	To some extant, Creationism has much less importance today
than it did in 1984 in the goals of the Far Right. The desire to
insinuate religion into public school has been replaced by the ruse
in the school voucher system to get public funds for religious schools,
who will legitimately teach Creationism.

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.origins