What conflict of interest does a Young Earth Creationist have? Not money. If you say religious belief, you'd be right, but it's not a terribly effective criticism because the majority of U.S. scientists are religious, too.
>What conflict of interest does a Young Earth Creationist have? Not money.
Why not money? Most of them built a career that is celebrated, while being lousy scientists, by playing the Creationist card and appealing to particular political/religious publics. And working for similarly minded organizations and "research" institutes.
>If you say religious belief, you'd be right, but it's not a terribly effective criticism because the majority of U.S. scientists are religious, too.
That would be relevant only if they let their religion influence their science. Which a computer scientist or a chemist doesn't have to, or at least as much as a evolutionary biologist.
> Why not money? Most of them built a career that is celebrated, while being lousy scientists, by playing the Creationist card and appealing to particular political/religious publics. And working for similarly minded organizations and "research" institutes.
I am not saying this is the case for YEC, but usually when you hold and defend some fringe belief, you often have books, videos on Youtube, dvds to sell, conferences to give, in some case museums [1]. (See conspiracy theorist Alex John films [2])
So yes, for some people there are some financial interest. But I would say this is not the main factor. If you have defended an idea for a long time, maybe you have sacrificed some part of your life like family or friend to your passion, and at some point it becomes so tied to your identity, that it must be impossible to realize how wrong your were.
The latter is true for any kind of belief, religious, political or even scientific.
Young Earth Creationism is something that people with lots of free-floating anxiety attach that free floating anxiety to. It's a belligerent, fear-based reactionary position but what bothers them is the perceived hubris and arrogance of scientists.
Plus, some people simply can't suspend disbelief of self-organizing systems. I have to wonder if there was trauma in science class for many of them at one point.
When I mentioned (as a 5th grade student ) to a 5th-grade student that evolution isn't exclusive to Creation , he burst into tears.
In general, highly charismatic religion seems somehow related to the general changes of the 1960s, coupled with some more sinister uses of mass media. I have to wonder if decades of television have made people addicted to willing suspension of disbelief of a particularly unexamined kind.
Why not money? Most of them built a career that is celebrated, while being lousy scientists, by playing the Creationist card and appealing to particular political/religious publics. And working for similarly minded organizations and "research" institutes.
>If you say religious belief, you'd be right, but it's not a terribly effective criticism because the majority of U.S. scientists are religious, too.
That would be relevant only if they let their religion influence their science. Which a computer scientist or a chemist doesn't have to, or at least as much as a evolutionary biologist.