I agree with quizmodius, but have two issues...
This is the part of science that creationists cannot accept. They want SCIENCE (as a monolith) to have THE ANSWER, right now, because that's how they, themselves, think.
I agree completely. This is very similar among developmental psychology with the dilineation between concrete-operational and formal-operational modes of thought (or whichever labels you prefer for these consciousness structures). A little Piaget, anyone??
In any event, we tend to see these consciousness structures emergy collectively among humanity on a historical scale, as well. Concrete-operational thinking (or role/rule mode), which historically was typified by mythic-membership, sociocentrism, and concrete-literal beliefs (usually mythic-fundamentalist), seemed to have more or less collectively emerged some 5 to 6 thousand years ago --- along with the rise of heavily patriarchal religion, predominantly agrarian (as opposed to horticultural) forms of subsistence, and powerful empire-states revolving around rigid rules, laws, and hierarchies. All of these qualities are somewhat indicative of modern conop, as well.
Coincidentally, the period in time in which mythic-membership first emerged on a grand scale --- 5 to 6 thousand years ago --- is just around the time that creationists claim the earth was created. Coincidence?? I think not.
Formal-operational thought, however, is collectively a more modern phenomena. It first emerged on a grand scale with the Renaissance (with smaller pockets found in some parts of ancient Greece), of course, and really flowered with our Western "Enlightenment" --- the Age of Reason. Thus, formop really began showing up in humans some 300 to 400 years ago. Along with it came the likes of humanistic philosophy, liberal democracies, an emphasis on egalitarianism of various sorts, capitalism (i.e., the middle class), and industrial technology. Slavery was abolished, two revolutions occured (American and French), theocracies took a blow, and rational-empiricism (i.e., scientific process) gained prominence.
This all probably sounds familiar. Which isn't too surprising, as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
But, is any of this really relevant?? Eh, maybe not --- but it is interesting nonethless. :asian:
To them, knowledge doesn't come about through observation, research, experimentation, etc., but rather through revelation. This idea of knowledge through revelation is why creationism has such purchase among those without a decent education in science. To them, knowledge comes from a book. Through revelation.
Woot ---- now, hold on a second. I would differentiate between the likes of "blind faith" with that of "revelation". Now, granted, sometimes (in fact, probably most of the time) the people that claim to have received a "revelation" are really just going on blind faith devoid of any real experience. But, I definately feel that transcendental illuminations of various sorts
do happen --- I just would disassociate them with the baggage many conservative religious types try and lump them with.
Laterz.
)
