Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
So does atheism/secularism. So does progressivism, conservatism, environmentalism, and libertarianism. People who can be described by these "isms" very frequently have provably wrong beliefs that are part of their supporting framework. There's nothing special about religion in that regard. Religion is only special in that regard to people who are ideologically on the side of science/secularism. Religious people do the same thing--"so are descended from an ape on your mothers side or your fathers side?" etc. Picking out creationism is the intellectual equivalent of that.
Once again, you haven't shown that these -isms should be considered equal.

What's it good for besides medicine?
Humans are very centralized organisms...

And actually you are doing the apples to oranges comparison here. You can't just look at the places where people use religion to infringe on science's territory and criticize religion, you should look at where people use science to infringe on religion/humanities--as in the case of utilitarianism. Who would you rather have in congress, someone who follows Bentham or someone who follows the Bible?
Can science infringe on the humanities?

The only reason the truth about where we came from is important is so that we don't believe bogus misleading stories about it. The teaching of evolution has a very poor track record in that regard--just go listen to people talking about evolution and gender roles.
So palaeo-anthropological speculation is science?

Unwarranted contempt for those who reject parts of it.
Why is it unwarranted?

You can't gather data on some things. But you can believe you are, believe it's verified, and believe you are breaking preconceptions. Especially if you really want to do that. Laughable conclusions are very very common in psychology.
Laughable conclusions are typically attributable to the circumscribed character of the subjects. And data can be gathered on anything; the question is as to the formulation.

You've never met someone who says "the scientific consensus!" or "studies show!" when they don't know much about it? Are you seriously picking out creationism as something that makes appeals to authority?
Religion is more conducive to patriotic sequaciousness than science.

And usually the most important things aren't provable, they are about values.
Why are they important?

But superstitions like that are usually trivial.
Creationism is the equivalent of knocking on wood?