Replies

The bolded part is simply a lie.

I know. He has set himself up as the final authority on every point even what others mean and how words are defined.

It is a disservice to religion to force everyone into warring camps based on whether they believe the earth moves or doesn't move, or whether the earth is 6000 or 4.5 billion years old, or whether evolution explains biological diversity, or whether all feline species descended from a pair of ur-cats that Noah took on the Ark (as per Ken Ham).

It serves ego pretty well though. Ego will use anything to preserve itself from a perceived threat even the subversion of religion. Actually that is a rather common one. Usurping science on its behalf is a little newer. Trying to wrap oneself in both of them is another wrinkle. Assuming the authority to speak for everyone is nothing new but it's a bit more audacious. Especially when you haven't successfully convinced anyone else of your perfection.

The problem comes from religious belief as espoused by, for example, Answers in Genesis.

They have a Statement of Faith on their website, to which all members must adhere.

Some of the tenets (under "General") are:

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation. 
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation. 
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time. 
The "gap" theory has no basis in Scripture. 
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into "secular" and "religious," is rejected.
No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

When someone believes all of these points they cannot take science literally, because science flatly contradicts these points.

They have to either ignore science, or somehow twist science all out of whack to make it coincide with their beliefs. If tens of thousands of scientists, the folks who actually know the field, have discovered a particular thing but that thing is contradicted by these points, the scientists have to be wrong. It doesn't matter if the believers don't know how or why they are wrong, it must must be so.

But the most glaring examples of this are the Answers in Genesis types who go forth to tell the world in general, and scientists in particular, both that they are wrong and how they are wrong.

This is where we get the "second law of thermal documents" and the points covered in the Index to Creationist Claims.

And it doesn't do any good to argue with these folks. They have wrapped themselves in their beliefs and will not hear a word you write.