"Help us stop the IndoctriNation!"

[Reverend Rick]

To teach something, regardless of how factual it is, that might suggest ancient scripture is inaccurate is perceived to be an attack on religion, strangely enough.

I know that our ancient text is fragmented and flawed. It was influenced by agenda's of the day. If a person wants to seek truth, they pretty much must accept that.

The thing is, many of you want to discard everything when there is much to be lost.

 

[Father Heathen]

I know that our ancient text is fragmented and flawed. It was influenced by agenda's of the day. If a person wants to seek truth, they pretty much must accept that.

The thing is, many of you want to discard everything when there is much to be lost.

I have nothing against the book being studied in the context of the time and culture it was written. My issue is with it being used as a guide for science and morality in the modern world. Also, the tiny bits of good stuff it contains is hardly original or exclusive to the text.

 

[waitasec]

There is less God in school and more Atheists in our country today.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Atheists, I'm saying our children are not thinking for themselves. Many have been indoctrinated by a Godless agenda.

no i would say more are thinking for themselves...

dogma is an excuse to not think for ones self.

 

[9Westy9]

I know that our ancient text is fragmented and flawed. It was influenced by agenda's of the day. If a person wants to seek truth, they pretty much must accept that.

The thing is, many of you want to discard everything when there is much to be lost.

Elaborate on the part in bold please

 

[Meow Mix]

You just validated that you have been indoctrinated. You stated that the ToE is scientific fact, when it is actually part fact and part speculation, philosophy and world view.

Did you not know that all scientific facts are "part fact, part speculation, philosophy and world view?"

Did you not know that all scientific knowledge is, depending on the field, roughly 1/3 actual scientific methodology, 1/3 mathematics, and 1/3 metaphysics?

This is nothing new -- furthermore, this is nothing negative. There's also nothing different about this for evolutionary biology and, say, gravitational physics. So why do you bring this up for evolutionary biology, yet not for gravitational physics and the like?

 

[gnosticx]

mate study illuminati...theyve constructed all education systems from start.... tv and schools are programming devices so of course its pagan...pagan is the constructed viewpoint thrust onto the masses...a more sophisticated lie for the more intelligent.... but the masses are just that; a herd. sorry....

 

[Gjallarhorn]

mate study illuminati...theyve constructed all education systems from start.... tv and schools are programming devices so of course its pagan...pagan is the constructed viewpoint thrust onto the masses...a more sophisticated lie for the more intelligent.... but the masses are just that; a herd. sorry....

Study...Illuminati...sorry I can't seem to get over those words placed beside each other.

How about we study random YouTube videos and website articles written in bright colors and shifting fonts sizes?

 

[Man of Faith]

Did you not know that all scientific facts are "part fact, part speculation, philosophy and world view?"

Did you not know that all scientific knowledge is, depending on the field, roughly 1/3 actual scientific methodology, 1/3 mathematics, and 1/3 metaphysics?

This is nothing new -- furthermore, this is nothing negative. There's also nothing different about this for evolutionary biology and, say, gravitational physics. So why do you bring this up for evolutionary biology, yet not for gravitational physics and the like?

If gravitational physics said that man came from an ape like creature then I would bring it up for that also.

 

[outhouse]

If gravitational physics said that man came from an ape like creature then I would bring it up for that also.

who exactly states there is a creator?? ancient men who wrote in allegory that was heavily influenced from previous religions in the levant that also had creation legends?

So when we have modern science that has no shadow of a doubt about homo sapiens origin from a common ancestor, why replace it with mythology???

 

[Man of Faith]

who exactly states there is a creator?? ancient men who wrote in allegory that was heavily influenced from previous religions in the levant that also had creation legends?

So when we have modern science that has no shadow of a doubt about homo sapiens origin from a common ancestor, why replace it with mythology???

You are caught in the trap that says, if you remove God, then the secular speculation that fills the gaps must be the truth. :no:

 

[Skwim]

You are caught in the trap that says, if you remove God, then the secular speculation that fills the gaps must be the truth. :no:

Kind of like the trap that says if god is the claimed operator then science can't offer a better explanation.

 

[Man of Faith]

Kind of like the trap that says if god is the claimed operator then science can't offer a better explanation.

I'm willing to weigh the explanation for God against science, but sadly some aren't. They want to remove any God explanation and then say that what is left must be the truth.

 

[9Westy9]

I'm willing to weigh the explanation for God against science, but sadly some aren't. They want to remove any God explanation and then say that what is left must be the truth.

Actually science is dealing with what we can know to be true. God doesn't come into science

 

[Skwim]

I'm willing to weigh the explanation for God against science,

Well, science really doesn't say anything about god, so I don't know what you're weighing here.

but sadly some aren't.

some what aren't what?

They want to remove any God explanation and then say that what is left must be the truth.

Not necessarily the truth, but at least what the evidence points to.

 

[Meow Mix]

If gravitational physics said that man came from an ape like creature then I would bring it up for that also.

Here's the problem, though, Man of Faith. You said:

You just validated that you have been indoctrinated. You stated that the ToE is scientific fact, when it is actually part fact and part speculation, philosophy and world view.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it appears to me that you're asserting that because ToE is "part speculation, philosophy and world view" that therefore it can't be scientific fact, and furthermore, that it's akin to indoctrination.

The problem that I'm attempting to point out with this is that all scientific facts are "part speculation, philosophy and worldview." This includes the scientific fact of universal gravitation. It seems now that this wasn't your chief objection after all -- that rather, you find the evolutionary scientific facts to be displeasing in some way; and that's why you object to it, rather than because it contains philosophy and worldview. Am I wrong, here?

If you accept universal gravitation, you're accepting a scientific fact that includes philosophy and worldview. If so, then please don't raise that ToE includes those, too, as if that's somehow your objection: it isn't. It seems that your objection is simply that you don't like the facts that ToE offers.

Now, I say "don't like" loosely here: I don't want to paint you as someone who engages in the fallacy of disbelief due to adverse consequence. "Don't like" also means to be skeptical of as far as I'm concerned here.

So, if you're going to engage in skepticism over ToE, I'm just saying that you should list the actual objections behind your skepticism. If you accept the presence of metaphysics in all other science then you couldn't pick out the metaphysics in this one as the culprit: that would be special pleading.

(On a separate conversation, if you're asserting that the metaphysics are in fact the problem specific to this case, you might clarify to avoid this perceived inconsistency. For instance, it would indeed be a metaphysical foul to assert evolution as a fact based on metaphysical presuppositions rather than on metaphysical analysis of established facts. Thankfully, however, that isn't the case for most people when it comes to evolution; though I'll admit that I've known a few people who assert evolutionary theory is true without even understanding its basis themselves.)

 

[Meow Mix]

You are caught in the trap that says, if you remove God, then the secular speculation that fills the gaps must be the truth. :no:

That would indeed be a metaphysical error. Scientism and its corollaries and cousins are just as bad as undue credulity. I agree with you here.

 

[outhouse]

You are caught in the trap that says, if you remove God, then the secular speculation that fills the gaps must be the truth. :no:

so what your saying is you wont answer these questions because you wont like the answer???

who exactly states there is a creator?? ancient men who wrote in allegory that was heavily influenced from previous religions in the levant that also had creation legends?

So when we have modern science that has no shadow of a doubt about homo sapiens origin from a common ancestor, why replace it with mythology???

 

[Father Heathen]

You are caught in the trap that says, if you remove God, then the secular speculation that fills the gaps must be the truth. :no:

But everything man pretends to know about god itself is speculation at best. The difference is that "secular speculation" is substantiated by evidence and logic, whereas your theology is not.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm willing to weigh the explanation for God against science, but sadly some aren't. They want to remove any God explanation and then say that what is left must be the truth.

It's not weighing science against god, it's weighing science against people's portrayals and perceptions of god.

Also, "god explanations" can not be tested by the scientific method, and thus aren't science and therefore have no place in science class.

 

[Man of Faith]

Here's the problem, though, Man of Faith. You said:



Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it appears to me that you're asserting that because ToE is "part speculation, philosophy and world view" that therefore it can't be scientific fact, and furthermore, that it's akin to indoctrination.

The problem that I'm attempting to point out with this is that all scientific facts are "part speculation, philosophy and worldview." This includes the scientific fact of universal gravitation. It seems now that this wasn't your chief objection after all -- that rather, you find the evolutionary scientific facts to be displeasing in some way; and that's why you object to it, rather than because it contains philosophy and worldview. Am I wrong, here?

If you accept universal gravitation, you're accepting a scientific fact that includes philosophy and worldview. If so, then please don't raise that ToE includes those, too, as if that's somehow your objection: it isn't. It seems that your objection is simply that you don't like the facts that ToE offers.

Now, I say "don't like" loosely here: I don't want to paint you as someone who engages in the fallacy of disbelief due to adverse consequence. "Don't like" also means to be skeptical of as far as I'm concerned here.

So, if you're going to engage in skepticism over ToE, I'm just saying that you should list the actual objections behind your skepticism. If you accept the presence of metaphysics in all other science then you couldn't pick out the metaphysics in this one as the culprit: that would be special pleading.

(On a separate conversation, if you're asserting that the metaphysics are in fact the problem specific to this case, you might clarify to avoid this perceived inconsistency. For instance, it would indeed be a metaphysical foul to assert evolution as a fact based on metaphysical presuppositions rather than on metaphysical analysis of established facts. Thankfully, however, that isn't the case for most people when it comes to evolution; though I'll admit that I've known a few people who assert evolutionary theory is true without even understanding its basis themselves.)

Most of science and "scientific facts", if you want to call them facts, but I don't believe that scientists use that term, is based on something that is observable and repeatable, so if there are speculations and presuppositions, they are validated by the experimental test. For example, nobody knows which way electricity flows, positive to negative, or negative to positive, but it doesn’t matter, electricity flows because we can test it by flipping on a light switch. The same thing with universal gravitation, we can test that. Scientists might not understand everything about gravitation, but we can test it with observable, repeatable experiments.

Not so with evolution. We can’t observe and repeat the beginning of the universe, earth and millions of years of evolution. We can’t observe and repeat the origins of man in a lab, at least not yet, if ever. Yes we can observe that creatures change and adapt to their environments and if you want to call that a “fact” then that is fine, I won’t argue against that. However the origin of man is forensic science, not observable and repeatable science.

Here is the problem. If there are gaps in what science can duplicate through observable and repeatable experimentation, such as the origins of man, it isn’t valid to say that a natural answer is the only possible answer. When people come out of school maintaining the position that evolution is a fact, and then calling creationists anti-science, then that is an obvious sign of indoctrination. What is anti-science about asking for science to follow the scientific method, by showing the observable part of man coming from some other creature? What we observe is what the Bible teaches, that there are clear seperations between organisms, so there are other valid alternative to evolution explanations as to how man got here.