How Creationism Hurts Chrsitian Colleges—And Their Students

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well, what's so spiritually nefarious about it? What detrimental effects have been documented? And what do these alleged effects have to do with whether evolution is a sound theory of the diversity of species?

.... look at how you talk of creationists deserving ridicule, that is your spiritually nefarious character.

Because of evolution theory, you don't understand anything about your own human spirit, who you are as being the owner of your decisions. You don't understand how you decide, and you don't understand how anything else in the universe is decided. You don't accept the fact freedom is real, which makes your view of the universe and people wrong.

Would you really prefer to go to an evolutionist college instead of a creationist college?

 

[Sapiens]

....

Would you really prefer to go to an evolutionist college instead of a creationist college?

You betchum Red Ryder. Why would I want to learn things that are patently false?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Would you really prefer to go to an evolutionist college instead of a creationist college?

I would rather go to a college that has biology teachers who are educated in biology enough to know that, regardless of their religious beliefs, things evolve because the genetic code from parent-to-offspring does not remain unchanged.

Because of evolution theory, you don't understand anything about your own human spirit, who you are as being the owner of your decisions. You don't understand how you decide, and you don't understand how anything else in the universe is decided. You don't accept the fact freedom is real, which makes your view of the universe and people wrong.

You are not understanding the theory of evolution. Evolution does not play a big role in the philosophy of free will vs. determinism (it hardly plays any role at all); Evolution does not degrade or demean our understanding of psychology (because for the most part we are looking at things that are living today); Evolution does not demand you give up your gods or religions, and while it may not be compatible with some more literal and conservative views, there is nothing inherent within the theory of evolution that states you must be an atheist to accept it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Evolution does not play a big role in the philosophy of free will vs. determinism

Except for evolution theory obliterating creationism, which is the only theory which describes how things in the universe are chosen.

 

[Sapiens]

Except for evolution theory obliterating creationism, which is the only theory which describes how things in the universe are chosen.

Creationism is not a theory it is a belief.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Except for evolution theory obliterating creationism, which is the only theory which describes how things in the universe are chosen.

Creationism is not a theory. And what do you mean by "how things in the universe are chosen?"

 

[Trantorfuzz]

.... look at how you talk of creationists deserving ridicule, that is your spiritually nefarious character.

Because of evolution theory, you don't understand anything about your own human spirit, who you are as being the owner of your decisions. You don't understand how you decide, and you don't understand how anything else in the universe is decided. You don't accept the fact freedom is real, which makes your view of the universe and people wrong.

Would you really prefer to go to an evolutionist college instead of a creationist college?

Evolution is not designed to answer questions about the human spirit. Criticizing evolution's silence on that matter is as crazy as criticizing geology for its irrelevance to poetry.

I do not credit you with understanding anything at all about evolutionary theory. For one thing, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist college." There is no such thing as an ideology called "evolutionism." Evolutionary theory is not some kind of anti-Scripture--is is merely the best biological explanation for the fact that all life on earth is literally related.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Evolution is not designed to answer questions about the human spirit. Criticizing evolution's silence on that matter is as crazy as criticizing geology for its irrelevance to poetry.

I do not credit you with understanding anything at all about evolutionary theory. For one thing, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist college." There is no such thing as an ideology called "evolutionism." Evolutionary theory is not some kind of anti-Scripture--is is merely the best biological explanation for the fact that all life on earth is literally related.

In theory evolution theory is just another scientific theory, in practical reality it is social darwinist ideology.

 

[Bunyip]

In theory evolution theory is just another scientific theory, in practical reality it is social darwinist ideology.

No social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it also went out of favour a lifetime ago.

 

[Sapiens]

No social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it also went out of favour a lifetime ago.

Oh tell the truth, evolution is part of a plot to silence, with prejudice, anyone named Mohammad. We're all gonna don our aluminum foil hats and shove fluoridated toothpaste down their throats.

 

[Bunyip]

Oh tell the truth, evolution is part of a plot to silence, with prejudice, anyone named Mohammad. We're all gonna don our aluminum foil hats and shove fluoridated toothpaste down their throats.

For satan's sake! HOW MANY TIMES have I told you not to tell them that?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it also went out of favour a lifetime ago.

Practical reality is in creationist college your emotions are appreciated in evolutionist colleges your emotions are ignored. Social darwinism is thriving.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

In theory evolution theory is just another scientific theory, in practical reality it is social darwinist ideology.

Evidence, please.

 

[Bunyip]

Practical reality is in creationist college your emotions are appreciated in evolutionist colleges your emotions are ignored. Social darwinism is thriving.

That is not even a very good lie, why do you bother?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Evidence, please.

Look at the forum, look at the evolutionists. They generally regard God as a fantasyfigure, and they say that love and hate are electrochemistry in the brain.

To take prescriptive applicability from natural selection theory is social darwinism, basically to interpret natural selection theory as saying organisms should survive, as a moral imperative, because they like to.

When you identify love, then you automatically get a moral imperative. They identify love as fact, the organisms like to survive, it provides a moral imperative, it's social darwinism.

You can also see by their personality that they display that they ignore who people are as being the owner of their decisions. They lack subjectivity towards who you are as a decider, like a stereotype of Mr Spock, coldhearted and calculating. That's because they made it into a matter of fact issue who you are, so subjectivity is out the window.

With creationism you get treated properly subjectively, as a person, with emotions that can't be measured. You may be liked or disliked, but regardless if you are disliked, it is subjective, there is no ruthlessness behind it of scientific certitude that you are bad or good.

 

[Sapiens]

Look at the forum, look at the evolutionists. They generally regard God as a fantasyfigure, and they say that love and hate are electrochemistry in the brain.

Yup, gods are fantasy, emotions are accompanied by detectable changes in the brain (though no necessarily caused by these changes).

To take prescriptive applicability from natural selection theory is social darwinism, basically to interpret natural selection theory as saying organisms should survive, as a moral imperative, because they like to.

The "will to live" is real though it is not the only driving force. It is not a moral imperative.

When you identify love, then you automatically get a moral imperative. They identify love as fact, the organisms like to survive, it provides a moral imperative, it's social darwinism.

That is an unsupported claim followed by a non sequitur.

You can also see by their personality that they display that they ignore who people are as being the owner of their decisions. They lack subjectivity towards who you are as a decider, like a stereotype of Mr Spock, coldhearted and calculating. That's because they made it into a matter of fact issue who you are, so subjectivity is out the window.

With creationism you get treated properly subjectively, as a person, with emotions that can't be measured. You may be liked or disliked, but regardless if you are disliked, it is subjective, there is no ruthlessness behind it of scientific certitude that you are bad or good.[/QUOTE]

 

[David M]

Look at the forum, look at the evolutionists. They generally regard God as a fantasyfigure, and they say that love and hate are electrochemistry in the brain.

They are chemistry in the brain, doesn't mean that they aren't real though.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They generally regard God as a fantasyfigure, and they say that love and hate are electrochemistry in the brain.

It is chemistry though. Dopamine, for example, causes feelings of joy. But many things can cause this to be released. Even if these emotions come from God, it is through these neurotransmitters that we are able to process them and be aware of them. Without any of this electrochemistry, not only would we lack emotion, we wouldn't even be able to live because it is similar processes that regulated the automated body functions required for living. Even when we get hungry, it is because of chemicals communicating in the body which causes the brain to release other chemicals so we know we are hungry.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is chemistry though. Dopamine, for example, causes feelings of joy.

I agree that chemistry is what's causing it, however, when people say that the feelings don't exist, it becomes a slight problem simply because of how we think about it, as you can see it what you said. "[It] causes feelings of joy." Which means that "joy" does exist, as an effect of the chemistry. Joy, anger, fear, etc, all those terms, describe the composite effects and interactions of the chemistry, physics, environment, etc. All in one combined event that we give a name of a feeling. That status does exist, even if it's natural. What I'm trying to say is that I disagree with people saying that feelings don't exist. They do, even if they're ultimately are caused by chemistry. That's my little addition in this discussion.

But many things can cause this to be released. Even if these emotions come from God, it is through these neurotransmitters that we are able to process them and be aware of them. Without any of this electrochemistry, not only would we lack emotion, we wouldn't even be able to live because it is similar processes that regulated the automated body functions required for living. Even when we get hungry, it is because of chemicals communicating in the body which causes the brain to release other chemicals so we know we are hungry.

Again, the mystery here is "so we know we are hungry." This "we" or "I" is only chemistry, so it's really just chemistry knowing that we're hungry because chemistry says so to the other chemistry. In all this, somehow, the magic of an "I" occurs that "knows" these things from the chemistry and its composed idea what it is.

Anywho. Just adding some crazy ¢5 thoughts.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

Look at the forum, look at the evolutionists. They generally regard God as a fantasyfigure, and they say that love and hate are electrochemistry in the brain.

To take prescriptive applicability from natural selection theory is social darwinism, basically to interpret natural selection theory as saying organisms should survive, as a moral imperative, because they like to.

When you identify love, then you automatically get a moral imperative. They identify love as fact, the organisms like to survive, it provides a moral imperative, it's social darwinism.

You can also see by their personality that they display that they ignore who people are as being the owner of their decisions. They lack subjectivity towards who you are as a decider, like a stereotype of Mr Spock, coldhearted and calculating. That's because they made it into a matter of fact issue who you are, so subjectivity is out the window.

With creationism you get treated properly subjectively, as a person, with emotions that can't be measured. You may be liked or disliked, but regardless if you are disliked, it is subjective, there is no ruthlessness behind it of scientific certitude that you are bad or good.

This is one of the biggest crocks of garbage I have ever read. There is no argument here--only the merest smears and slanders against people who don't share your scientifically illiterate views.

First, there is NOTHING in evolutionary theory that dictates any prescriptivist doctrine of any kind. So it is unsurprising that your mere assertion to the contrary is backed up by NOTHING in the biological literature regarding natural selection and genetic drift.

Second, it is the merest metaphysical prejudice to suppose that certain configurations matter cannot love or that materialist philosophy, which does not follow from any scientific theory, rejects emotions as in any way insignificant or unreal.

On a related point, the notion that social darwinism follows from evolutionary theory is false. The chains of inference that might relate the two simply don't exist.

As far as I can tell, you are merely parroting religious fundamentalist rhetoric. That's why I have lost interest in your posts.