the deceit of the creationists

Well I just can't stay away from this topic. Since I made the last post I've been reading more of the two counter creationist web sites I posted links to. They've reaffirmed something I've been suspecting for some time.
At first I used to think of the creationists (and the intelligent design supporters, who let's face it are creationists in disguise) were misguided ignorant people raised with unquestioning faith in the bible that blinded them to the reality they lived in. While I still felt it was important to fight against their efforts to spread religiously motivated ignorance, at the same time I felt somewhat constrained by the whole freedom of religion thing. And no, I don't mean the law, I mean the concept. It's supposed to be a core value of the country, it means respecting other people's views even if you don't agree with them. It was a delicate balance, but I tried to maintain it.
But the more I saw of the creationist arguments, like the video I linked to at the end of my last post, the more I was convinced that they were deliberately attempting to deceive people. So many of their arguments are outright lies, or rely on decades old, outdated research. But check out the creationist propaganda and there it is, being flaunted for all to see. The sites I linked to handily refute a great deal of those arguments. But they continue to use them.
There's one of those arguments in particular I want to focus on. This one.
Basically what Kent Hovind (the guy in the video I linked to at the end of the last post) did was quote Niles Eldridge (paleontologist, evolutionary theorist) in such a way to make it seem like he said that the geologic column (the basic timeline of prehistory derived from the layers of fossils found in the ground) was dated using circular reasoning. But the entire quote, indeed a series of paragraphs on the subject, makes exactly the opposite statement. And also states that in some cases radioactive dating can be used to date a geologic layer (which Kent Hovind strenuously denies in the same segment).
Isn't it interesting how he perverted someone else's words and then continued to make claims that the same person clearly invalidated in the same series of paragraphs?

It's things like this that have convinced me that the creationists know darned well that they're not only incorrect, but are lying. The site I referenced often attempts to be kind to the creationists so far as suggesting that they may simply be incompetent researchers. Which would still be preferable to intentional deceit in the name of religion.

But I think it's clear that they know they're working to deceive people. They're not proposing a scientific theory, they're twisting the words of others, using selective quotes to make it seem like they said the opposite of what they really intended. They make claims that are completely false, either through outdated research or in some cases by making completely baseless claims that are easily demonstrated as being wrong.


They're lying. Plain and simple.

Which I think brings up an interesting point. At least some of these people must be reasonably scientifically literate to be able to come up with the claims that they do. Literate enough to understand the theory of evolution. See, it's my feeling that the people who really doubt evolution simply don't understand it. Once you understand it, it's pretty much common sense. It takes a degree of imagination to be able to extend your thought process to the sort of time scales needed to understand it, but once you're there it's simple.
I think they're attempting to coerce people into embracing creationism even though they themselves are aware of how poor a relationship the bible has with reality (I'm not saying it has no value, but treating it as literal truth in all areas is bound to fail because it was written in a pre-scientific world that lacked a great deal of the knowledge that allows our modern world to function). They may not even believe in creationism themselves.

Let me fast forward to what I think they're attempting to do to society. The fundamentalists are trying to restructure society into an echo of the dark ages.
It's clear that at their top they have an intelligent leadership who are ruthlessly fighting to promote their interests. Their core support comes from ignorant individuals who lack the knowledge to resist the message that the fundamentalist propaganda machine feeds them, but at the top I think most of the organization must know of the sort of deceit they're engaging in. The regular scandals that tend to claim one of their leaders every so often seems to suggest that while the fundamentalists at large may attempt to live by their moral code, their leaders are as corrupt, morally if not spiritually, as those they regularly denounce.

So anyway, where I see them headed if they manage to gain control of the country (an eventuality that, ironically enough, leads me to invoke the name of God in despair even though I'm an agnostic) is this: I think their leadership understand how important science is to our modern society. If they were to take control they'd have to safeguard some degree of scientific understanding while at the same time they worked to sabotage all public knowledge of it. For their interests they want the public at large to be ignorant of the higher forms of science, because as I said they want the people to be ignorant and frightened of the world around them so that they turn to the church for answers. It's clear from the general public level of ignorance of science that we have in this country that the society can exist without the masses understanding the sciences. It's just that at the top we rely on a limited number of individuals who do understand it. And they'd have to have a similar core of knowledgeable experts in the various fields to continue running things.
Sure, the country would lag the rest of the world in scientific research and it would slowly sink into third world status, but that's really not their concern. Misery can be used to strengthen fundamentalist support, just look at the Middle East.

But anyway, my ultimate vision (if they were to succeed in essentially taking the country over) goes like this: They will have to create a new ruling class. By keeping the masses ignorant they'll have made them largely unsuitable for any sort of national or even local leadership position. I suspect they'd need to develop an entirely separate educational system for the new ruling class in order to keep the dangerous information safe. Which also means that the ruling class would probably be hereditary. It might prove to be difficult or perhaps even impossible to take someone raised in the faithful ignorance method and bring them into the fold, the sudden understanding of how much they'd been deceived might prove to cause them to question their faith.

As I said, the model for this society is essentially medieval Europe. A dirt poor working class working themselves to death to support an opulent ruling class while the church secretly controls the rulers from behind the scenes like puppets.

Analysis of the methods of the fundamentalist Christians in the USA has lead me to this conclusion. I honestly believe that their leadership is this deceitful, they've demonstrated it too often now. And as such I have to label that entire movement as basically destructive and counter to the best interests of the country as a whole.

Legally they can't entirely be stopped because of the whole freedom of religion thing. Which, as I said, is basically a good idea, and I'm unwilling to compromise such principles when they become inconvenient.

But I think that makes it our basic civic duty to work to oppose them. They've declared a war on the secular aspects of the country. Even those Christians who do not subscribe to the same maniacal, obsessive devotion to interpreting the bible as literal fact are not safe. Another tactic I've seen used by the creationists is to label evolutionist scientists as atheists (in one case as a marxist as well, almost any slur will do apparently). Basically, if you're not with them then you're against them whether you like it or not.
There can be no common ground because they're unwilling to acknowledge any.

The sooner this subversive movement is stopped, the sooner we can get back to working to make this country a better place for all. So long as they're still out there and possessing the kind of power that they do today they'll still be pushing their agenda of intolerance and fear. I'd hope that whatever the differences among everyone else in the country, we can at least agree that these are not the sort of values we should be embracing.