The cure for cults that want to deny others
their freedom of speech is more freedom of speech
-- Fredric Rice


Creationist Cults

Where exactly do creationist cults get off track?

Science starts with an observation, the collection of data about the observed phenomena, the development of theories designed to explain and describe the observed phenomena, the development of tests designed to destroy a theory, and then the application of those tests after which observations are made to determine whether the attribute of the theory holds up. If not, the attribute is discarded and the theory has to be modified in light of the findings.

Occult superstition starts with a religious belief and then attempts to find excuses for believing. When science debunks a belief, superstition continues by attempting to find ways to ignore or otherwise "explain away" how science is some how "sadly mistaken."

With creationist cults, followers start out pretending that the conflicting creation myths in the contemporary versions of the classical Christanic mythologies are some how literally factual accounts of how the universe and how the Earth were some how "created" -- against all reason and in utter defiance to science and, of course, without offering any evidence for this "creator" of theirs. And it goes without saying that creationist cults can't reasonably explain where their "creator" deity constructs came from.

Why debunk such obviously stupid claptrap?

People should be allowed to believe any occult superstition and be allowed to wallow in their willful ignorance as they wish and certainly, as a Human Rights activist with a long history of Civil Rights activism, the creator of The Skeptic Tank (who is also the Special Projects Director of the Organized Crime Civilian Response) wouldn't wish to deny anyone their religious notions.

What must be opposed, however, are the religiously insane attempting to get their occult superstitious claptrap taught as if it were science in the public schools and in colleges. In addition to being against the Constitution of the United States, the attempt to debase science which creationist cults continually engage in threatens the health and safety of a world populace which grows increasingly reliant on science and technology for its continued survival.

What about evolution? What about creationist claims??

Evolution is a directly observed phenomena that's not subject to belief or disbelieve any more than gravitation is subject to belief or disbelief. The number of closely-related theories which attempts to explain how evolution happens are subject to scientific method. No scientist speaking within his or her venue suggests that evolution doesn't happen some how. Scientists debate how evolution occures; the debates are about the mechanisms which drive the observed fact of evolution.

Creationist cults don't seem to know what evolution is and what evolution isn't. In their propaganda you'll find them trying to demand that evolution some how has something to do with geology, astronomy, political ideologies, and no end of amazingly stupid claptrap. In much of the cult propaganda one will find the cult try to pretend that evolution is also some how a religious ideology, ignoring the fact that evolution is a directly observed phenomena -- and ignoring the fact that most Christians -- and other theists -- accept the fact of evolution.

Also these creationist cults deliberately confuse the origins of life with the advent of species. And in fact evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, geology, astronomy, nuclear physics, tree rings, or anything else that creationists try to pretend have something do with with simple biology.

If creationist cults can be blamed for not knowing what evolution is, perhaps it comes as no surprise that neither does the American Heritate Dictionary which mistakenly describes the contemporary word usage to be:

Evolution: 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. 2.a. The process of developing. b. Gradual development. 3. Biology. a. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors. b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. 4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements. 5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

Which has nothing to do with evolution. Even dictionaries get simple biology wrong. In fact evolution is merely the term used to describe the observed fact that existing species become genetically incapable of successfully breeding with their parent species over geologically long periods of time. It's a simple observation which is undeniably true -- unless one's experiencing an overwhelming need for willful religious ignorance.

The how of evolution is open to debate; the fact of evolution is directly observed and, while it's not open to debate as to whether evolution happens or not, it's certainly open to either acceptance or denial -- but then the same could be said for gravitation which also observationally exists and which also has a number of closely-related theories which attempts to describe and explain the observed phenomena.

Getting back to the American Heritage entry, evolution has nothing to say about whether a species or "more complex" or "better" than another -- that's a willful creationist belief. Theories which describe how evolution behaves underscores the fact that some species are better adapted to survive in a given environment than another given species. There's nothing "better" about the species. And as for complexity, evolution does care how complex or how simple a species is.

Creationist cult followers are well aware of the facts. They simply decide not to accept the truth because they mistakenly believe that the truth some how detracts from their occult superstitions. In fact science doesn't concern itself with religious occultism which can't be tested.

Where else do these creationist cults go wrong?

For some reason creationist cults think that if they could some how deny the theories which describe the observed fact of evolution, evolution would simply disappear, apparently. Creationist cultists seem to feel that if they could make evolution some how disappear, that would mean that their deity constructs some how exist.

Toward that end creationist cults express and exhibit their ignorance about science, proclaiming science says what it does not, and then "forget" to provide evidence for the existance of their creationist gods.

Creationists lack evidence for any of the deity constructs and science doesn't allow for finding it since science concerns itself with that which is testable. Since creationist cultists can't find evidence for any of their invisible playmates, they're left with trying to pretend that bringing science down to their level of willful ignorance some how makes it okay for them to continue to profess a belief in the unevidenced.

Any text written by the creationist cult which may be quoted within this criticial examination of the creationist cult is provided according to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at

"You can lie about ICR all you want." -- Jason Daniel Henderson

"Thank you for your permission however there's never any need to.
Creationist propaganda is already self-debunking." -- Fredric L. Rice


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Organized Crime Civilian Response®.

This web site is not affiliated or associated with any creationist cult in any way and neither the web site host, the web site owner, or any of the authors which assisted in debunking creationist nonsense are in any way connected with any creationist cult.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank