Psychologizing the Origins debate

It's a favorite ploy of evolutionists to attack creationists by claiming they are anti-science. (That no creationist claims to be anti-science doesn't seem to matter.)

In a recent article two psychologists (pretending to be scientists) claimed that the 'anti-science' of creationists had its source in their upbringing. [1.]

Comments;

- To psychologize an 'opponent' (fellow citizen) is an uncivil act. It's both patronizing and rude. (This tactic became popular with Freud; who had some of the silliest ideas on evolution you could imagine; taken from a clown called Huston Smith I believe.) The idea is that you attack a viewpoint by offering some speculation on how a person got that viewpoint. You ignore the argument and concentrate on biography. This is, in my opinion, just another form of the ad hominem argument. What should be dealt with is creationist argument, not the personal background of the person who holds this position. (That E.s so often resort to slander and other 'rhetorical' techniques is evidence of how weak their own position is.)

- this game can of course be played with anyone and against anyone; even our psychologists. (Don't you wish people who deny the soul would stop calling them psychologists? Psychology means the study of the soul. Don't they have any integrity at all?) Does their background nullify their position on Origins? (Are the opinions of the elite worthless because they belong to the exploitive, pampered class? Should we, like Pol Pot, consider the educated class and their opinions of no worth?)

- once again, E.'s (suffering from a lack of good arguments) use slander to attack the c. position. They tell us creationists are anti-science. On the contrary; to doubt Darwinism is Not to be against science. At best (even if e. were science) this would only qualify as being against one small aspect of the current scientific orthodoxy. (Is to oppose something some politician says to be against politics? to be against government?)

- While Creationists aren't 'anti-science' many are wary of what's going on in the scientific community, and they have every right to be. What we see is that scientists will take money from anyone, and are willing to do anything. That's surely something to be concerned about. S. researchers (etc.) have taken hundreds of billions from the u.s. military alone. (If not trillions by now; and it's certainly trillions worldwide.) Many of them (if not most) are willing to get involved in any kind of program; whether this is weaponry or other things. We see them take hundreds of billions from governments to get involved in many dubious programs. (I'm not claiming all of this is dangerous or negative.) We see masses of them willing to do absolutely anything. They apparently have no ethical or moral standards whatsoever. Shouldn't people be wary of this? Isn't it their civil duty?

- scientists have been responsible for many evil developments in the past (bombs, nuclear weapons, poisonous gases, spying techniques, etc.) so it's clear that they constitute a danger in our midst. (One would like to see them list publicly what limits they are willingly to stand by; if any.)

- apparently our authors believe citizens should just allow scientists to do whatever they please. If that's the case they should come out and say so. (Do they believe scientists in communist countries should be allowed to do whatever they want? Do they believe Nazi scientists had a right to do whatever they wanted?)

- to be against some things scientists do (with tax dollars, by the way) is not to be against science. Science isn't a person, and there's no such thing as generic 'science' in any event. (e.g. if I'm against murder can I be said to be anti-human?) This is a bad argument; if we can even call it an argument.

- the whole evolutionary view flounders on the problem of origins of life. It's impossible (on some blind chemical basis) to get living organisms from inert materials; and I fail to see how it's 'anti-science' to point this out. [4.]

Notes;
1. Reference; Darwin’s Ethics: All and/or None 05/22/2007
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200705.htm#20070522a
- Propaganda: Anti-evolutionism as anti-science – An article in Science tried to analyze the “childhood origins of adult anti-science behavior.” Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg considered creationism and resistance to evolutionary theory as examples of anti-scientific attitudes, and portrayed them as childish behaviors that were not properly overcome through education. Surprisingly, they admitted that common sense contributes to resistance to evolution.
They ended, “This is the current situation in the United States, with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and evolutionary biology. These concepts clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals, and (in the United States) these beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities.” The idea is that scientists and educators need to be aware of these “anti-science” tendencies in their efforts to teach science – a science that is congruent with materialistic neuroscience and evolution.' (Apparently they momentarily forgot that we're all just mindless animals, or reactionary bags of chemicals.)
2. If the authors want a completely passive citizenry they should say so openly. (This would also involve not blaming people for being passive when that tactic suits the authors.)
3. One wonders, if man has no mind or soul, and his behavior is simply a matter of chemical reactions in the brain, what basis they have for criticizing people for holding creationist beliefs. This makes no sense to me. Neuro-psychology is no psychology at all. (ie. psychology literally means, the study of the soul.) If these people were honest they would stop referring to what they do as psychology. (Maybe we can call it brainiology, brainism, physicalism, or materialism.)
- one wonders why they don't call themselves chemists.
- apparently they don't realize the implications of their own position; they certainly don't seem willing to acknowledge this. If all human thought is merely chemical reaction there can be no basis for morality or ethics; or for the finger pointing and scolding engaged in by our authors.
4. This has been admitted by many of the top biologists of our day.