The Cowboy Creation Cultist

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

A spell back, someone on Twitter was peddling a book about how he, a scientist, went from atheism to faith. I was intrigued and looked up some background on the author. It turns out that he is affiliated with the Untied (misspelling intentional) Methodist Church.

I replied, "It is indeed unfortunate that you are telling your story of coming to faith, but are a leader in a church that doesn't believe the Bible." The UMC is notoriously liberal in theology.

Modified from Pixabay / Willgard Krause
Seymour Garte got a mite riled over my blunt remark, and his reply consisted of several false statements. He believes in the "grandeur" of Darwin's evolution and wrote a chapter on it (his book is praised by other TEs as well). Why do theistic evolutionist compromisers insist on millions of years of death and suffering, where their god is a cruel monster that uses such methods? Also, why did their god lie about creation in Genesis and all through the Bible? Asking for a friend. 
Let's take a look-see at the problems with his reply, ignoring other parts of the "conversation" by someone whose remarks were...truly bizarre.

His sentence is a combination of fallacies that I must assume are based on me being a biblical creationist, which is in my Twitter profile. First, he presumed to know what I think. Then he made me judgmental while judging me himself. Third, he made false statements about biblical creation being "unorthodox" and "recently cult derived".

Biblical creation is unorthodox? That'll be the day! In reality, the Bible teaches recent creation, and the church fathers also believed this; an old earth is the new kid on the block [1, 2, 3]. There is nothing unorthodox or "recently derived" about biblical creation, and to get long ages out of Scripture, they must first be shoved in there!

Frankly (mind if I call you Frank?), calling biblical creationists "cultists" is a cheap insult, the word having strong negative connotations. Indeed, Bill Nye implied it in his debates with Ken Ham, referring to things like "Ken Ham's creation model" as well as "Ken Ham and his followers [4], as if Ham was the leader of a small group with aberrant views. (Answers in Genesis is probably the best known biblical creationist organization, so that may be a reason why AiG has been called a cult [5,6] and is frequently targeted in other attacks by misotheists and churchians.

By the way, people who are ignorant of creation science and believe what they've been told by those who hate us tend to make absurd statements. I remember when owlhoots have accused The Question Evolution Project of getting information from Kent Hovind, but we don't post his material. Even so, that is both an ad hominem and a genetic fallacy.

Atheists, evolutionists, old earthers are known for throwing out emotionally-loaded words, but do they even know the meaning of cult? There are several characteristics, such as:
  1. Exclusivity
  2. Isolation
  3. Persecution Complexes
  4. Special Knowledge
  5. Indoctrination
  6. Group Think
  7. Common Appearance Standards
Many of these apply to atheism and evolution! Creation science proponents, however, have disagreements, varying models, no standardized doctrine (other than upholding the authority and inerrancy of the Word of God), and other aspects that are at odds with standard definitions of cults. Also, we do not join forces with enemies of God for the sake of propagating the ever-changing atheistic interpretations of origins philosophies. You savvy that? No, atheism and evolution have much more in common with cults than are found in biblical creation science [7].

I freely admit to having a passel of problems and my sanctification is lacking in several areas. Biblical creationists do not have all the answers, but creation science models fit the data far better than naturalistic assumptions. We are not cultists. Critics who reject what is plainly taught in the Bible, as well as repressing its authority to atheistic science — you need to repent.