Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well don't say it as if it's a bad thing. I mean.....opinion is fine but opinion, if it to be passed off as fact, can not be tested and falsified, isn't very useful.

The sort of teaching method for creationism would be that students get a list of words and they have to put the word either into the matter of opinion category, or the matter of fact category. A planet, it belongs to the fact category. A tree, belongs to the fact category. Love, belongs to the opinion category. Creation belongs to the fact category.

A leprechaun, it also belongs to the fact category, because it is a matter of fact what you have in your fantasy. Even if you would say leprechauns exist out in nature, while in reality they do not, then still it would be a fact that they do not exist in nature.

Now the word creator. All what is about what makes a decision turn out the way it does, belongs to the opinion category. The resulting decisions belong to the fact category. Those are the fundamental rules.

Creator then belongs to the opinion category. Sure we can see for instance Spielberg creating movies. However what we see is the body, we do not see who Spielberg is as being the owner of his decisions, we see the resulting decisions. We see how the decisionmaking is organized, we do not see what it is that makes the decisions turn out the way they do.

So there is a spiritual domain which chooses over the material domain, but the existence of the spiritual domain is a matter of opinion. Science itself is silent about the spiritual domain, the mathematics about choosing work without any symbol for what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. But scientists as people, they can express an opinion about it.

 

[outhouse]

Freedom is a fact of nature. Things in the universe can turn out several different ways, people also can turn out several different ways..

But are any of these dependent on belief to any deity?

Those same statements apply perfectly to an atheist.

 

[outhouse]

Creation belongs to the fact category.

Yet it is not fact, in any way shape or form. Factually there is no place we can attribute any deity to any part of nature with any degree of certainty.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The sort of teaching method for creationism would be that students get a list of words and they have to put the word either into the matter of opinion category, or the matter of fact category.

This is subjective reasoning and one would have to show why one thing is a fact and one is opinion.

A planet, it belongs to the fact category.

But how does one determine this? See, I can look into a telescope and deem what I perceive to be a planet "a planet" but without corroborating data then it's an opinion. Are you getting how this works now? Evidence can be what differentiates fact from fiction.

Love, belongs to the opinion category.

True. It is subjective.

Creation belongs to the fact category.

But such a claim requires actual evidence. It requires "testable" evidence. You don't get to make the blanket statement that "creation is fact" without producing your evidence to substantiate your claim.

A leprechaun, it also belongs to the fact category, because it is a matter of fact what you have in your fantasy.

This is an illogical statement. There is no evidence leprechaun's exist. And the fantasy in the minds of those who espouse to such fantasy isn't fact.

Even if you would say leprechauns exist out in nature, while in reality they do not, then still it would be a fact that they do not exist in nature.

Exactly..so this trumps the first part of your statement that leprechauns belong in the "fact" category if in reality it is agreed that they don't exist given the lack of evidence.

Now the word creator. All what is about what makes a decision turn out the way it does, belongs to the opinion category.

Correct..so the notion of a creator is hardly fact....

The resulting decisions belong to the fact category. Those are the fundamental rules.

What decision?
Whose decision?

Creator then belongs to the opinion category. Sure we can see for instance Spielberg creating movies. However what we see is the body, we do not see who Spielberg is as being the owner of his decisions, we see the resulting decisions. We see how the decisionmaking is organized, we do not see what it is that makes the decisions turn out the way they do.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes. We can see Spielberg as a creator but we have tangible evidence of the creator (i.e. Spielberg) and the created works of Spielberg. We don't have tangible evidence of the creator in your mind and in your books.....thus we can not confirm the creator in your mind is the creator of that which you "believe" he/she/they/it created.

So there is a spiritual domain which chooses over the material domain, but the existence of the spiritual domain is a matter of opinion.

See what I did there. I agree with the what I put in bold.

Science itself is silent about the spiritual domain

You are correct. And why do you suppose that is? See science in itself doesn't negate the existence of gods, leprechauns, angels spirits, nymphs, fairies, trolls etc...etc.... Science remains silent because no one in human history has ever stepped forward with testable evidence for such bold claims. Science is about establishing fact over fiction.

the mathematics about choosing work without any symbol for what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. But scientists as people, they can express an opinion about it.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Mathematics is not about choosing.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is subjective reasoning and one would have to show why one thing is a fact and one is opinion.



But how does one determine this? See, I can look into a telescope and deem what I perceive to be a planet "a planet" but without corroborating data then it's an opinion. Are you getting how this works now? Evidence can be what differentiates fact from fiction.




True. It is subjective.




But such a claim requires actual evidence. It requires "testable" evidence. You don't get to make the blanket statement that "creation is fact" without producing your evidence to substantiate your claim.



This is an illogical statement. There is no evidence leprechaun's exist. And the fantasy in the minds of those who espouse to such fantasy isn't fact.




Exactly..so this trumps the first part of your statement that leprechauns belong in the "fact" category if in reality it is agreed that they don't exist given the lack of evidence.



Correct..so the notion of a creator is hardly fact....




What decision?
Whose decision?



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes. We can see Spielberg as a creator but we have tangible evidence of the creator (i.e. Spielberg) and the created works of Spielberg. We don't have tangible evidence of the creator in your mind and in your books.....thus we can not confirm the creator in your mind is the creator of that which you "believe" he/she/they/it created.



See what I did there. I agree with the what I put in bold.




You are correct. And why do you suppose that is? See science in itself doesn't negate the existence of gods, leprechauns, angels spirits, nymphs, fairies, trolls etc...etc.... Science remains silent because no one in human history has ever stepped forward with testable evidence for such bold claims. Science is about establishing fact over fiction.



I'm not sure what you mean here. Mathematics is not about choosing.

You confuse the distinction fact - opinion, with the distinction nature - fantasy. It is obviously a fact what you have in your fantasy. If you fantasize about cars, then you have pictures of cars in your fantasy. It so happens there are cars in the natural universe also, and the existence of these cars is also a matter of fact. But if you fantasize about leprechauns and dragons, then it is a fact that you have these in your fantasy, obviously. One can make science about what people have in their fantasy.

You agreed that love is a matter of opinion. But why would love be a matter of opinion, why wouldn't it be a matter of fact?

That is because love is motivation of a decision, love so chooses the way things turn out. Any what chooses is free, and therefore no force can apply to it. Obtaining a fact works by force, evidence forces to a conclusion resulting in a 1 to 1 copy of what is evidenced, a model. What you see in sciencebooks are representations of what exists in nature, models. That is why it is not a matter of fact whether or not love is real, because the freedom in love choosing excludes any kind of force, including the force of evidence.

So you see, if you follow the opinion that love is real to it's logical conclusion, then there is a spiritual domain in which at least there is love, and this spiritual domain chooses over the material domain.

You can do mathematics about choosing, and as I said, there is no symbol for what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does in this maths. So it means as per my example, the existence of Spielberg as being the owner of his decisions, is not acknowledged in science. Only the body is measurable, and how the decisionmaking is organized, those can be mathematically represented in principle.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You confuse the distinction fact - opinion, with the distinction nature - fantasy. It is obviously a fact what you have in your fantasy. If you fantasize about cars, then you have pictures of cars in your fantasy. It so happens there are cars in the natural universe also, and the existence of these cars is also a matter of fact. But if you fantasize about leprechauns and dragons, then it is a fact that you have these in your fantasy, obviously. One can make science about what people have in their fantasy.

How can I establish the fantasy in your mind as "fact". Fantasy by its very nature rest on belief, assumption and mere speculation. It borderlines on delusional. If you perceive it to be real then no one can argue against you. It's only when you try to pass off your fantasy to others is when it begs the question of how you can present evidence of your fantastical claim(s). If you aren't in a position to substantiate the fantasy in your mind then it is of little use to others.

You agreed that love is a matter of opinion. But why would love be a matter of opinion, why wouldn't it be a matter of fact?

Because it's subjective. How you perceive "love" is most definitely different than how another will perceive it.

That is because love is motivation of a decision, love so chooses the way things turn out. Any what chooses is free, and therefore no force can apply to it.

Love doesn't choose or make decisions. Humans do that based on emotion. These emotions influence our decision making. For love one might bring his/her lover a pretty rose. For love one may cut off his/her ear. You can't quantify love so you can't say that it is an absolute.

Obtaining a fact works by force, evidence forces to a conclusion resulting in a 1 to 1 copy of what is evidenced, a model. What you see in sciencebooks are representations of what exists in nature, models. That is why it is not a matter of fact whether or not love is real, because the freedom in love choosing excludes any kind of force, including the force of evidence.

Facts aren't obtained by force. If you apply the scientific method then a few things can happen in your hypothesis. Your experiments can render your hypothesis true. It can render it false. If it renders it false then you may have to start over. In many cases you can get a different outcome than what was expected thus leading you into a different direction of discovery.

So you see, if you follow the opinion that love is real to it's logical conclusion, then there is a spiritual domain in which at least there is love, and this spiritual domain chooses over the material domain.

But you've agreed that the "spiritual domain" isn't factual rather it's an "opinion" thus love is a fantasy which resides in the minds of the individual....right? I mean you did say...and I quote..:

So there is a spiritual domain which chooses over the material domain, but the existence of the spiritual domain is a matter of opinion.

 

[roger1440]

Only creationism validates both fact and opinion, that is why it should be the foundation of science. Other philosophies only validate fact, like materialism, or only validate opinion, like postmodernism.

Creator:
subjectivity
opinion = the result of choosing about what it is that chooses
emotions
soul
spirit
morality
religion
spirituality

Creation:
objectivity
fact = copying / modelling something from creation
body
brain
fantasy
mathematics

Where would the "creationism" story come from?

 

[outhouse]

Where would the "creationism" story come from?

Well Adamu was one of Mesopotamians mythologies first men, that existed before Israelites existed.

And there is quite a bit of Mesopotamian influence on the mythology that is not in debate in all academic circles.

It all comes down to details and study to figure out how the mythology and legends evolved. With no study on this aspect, one would be going in blind.

 

[roger1440]

Well Adamu was one of Mesopotamians mythologies first men, that existed before Israelites existed.

And there is quite a bit of Mesopotamian influence on the mythology that is not in debate in all academic circles.

It all comes down to details and study to figure out how the mythology and legends evolved. With no study on this aspect, one would be going in blind.

To teach creationism seems like a sheep in wolves clothing to me.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But if you fantasize about leprechauns and dragons, then it is a fact that you have these in your fantasy, obviously.

And the same can be said about God.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But you've agreed that the "spiritual domain" isn't factual rather it's an "opinion" thus love is a fantasy which resides in the minds of the individual....right? I mean you did say...and I quote..:

Yes what is in the spiritual domain is a matter of opinion, but what is in fantasy is a matter of fact. Love is not an object in fantasy, it is in the emotions of people, by which they choose.

Again, you use a nature - fantasy distinction as fundamental, that doesn't work. You attribute opinion to fantasy, but you should attribute opinion to what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

The distinction opinion - fact, or spiritual - material is fundamental, or creator - creation, or what chooses and what is chosen.

 

[Desert Snake]

I still don't understand what you mean by creationism validating either facts or opinion.
An opinion may be validated by facts, but facts cannot be validated by opinion. This would be a claim that mere belief makes a thing valid or factual. I might believe in unicorns or little green men from Mars, but my beliefs don't validate anything, they are unsupported opinions - fantasies.


An opinion that is not founded on facts is invalid.

Creationism is logical. It provides the most logical explanation besides a negative assertion. Negative assertions are only good for people who don't know the subject.

 

[Shad]

Creationsim requires unproven assertions which makes makes it logically speaking unsound. So no it is not the most logical at all since a logical position is both sound and valid. An unsound position is not able to guarantee it's premises led to it's conclusion. More so it violates Occam's Razor by attaching unnecessary and unproven hypothesis, assumptions,' to a model which does not require it. Creationism use modern cosmological idea which require no God for the idea to have merit. Tacking "God did it" is not required at all. It only serves the purpose of shoring up the troops aka believers.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And the same can be said about God.

Love and hate obviously do not belong in the fantasy category. God belongs together with love and hate in one category of all things which choose, the spiritual domain. Love is said to choose, it is said to be motivation of a decision, and whether or not love is real is regarded as a matter of opinion.

You can see this very clearly by that the soul is said to choose, and the existence of the soul is said to be established by faith and revelation, which is a form of opinion. So you make all these decisions in life, and then when you are dead then who you are as being the owner of all these decisions, your soul, is judged by God. Judging is also a form of choosing, so you see God also said to belong to the category of what choose.

So you see the logic repeated, X chooses, and the existence of X is a matter of opinion. That's the way it works.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Creationsim requires unproven assertions which makes makes it logically speaking unsound. So no it is not the most logical at all since a logical position is both sound and valid. An unsound position is not able to guarantee it's premises led to it's conclusion. More so it violates Occam's Razor by attaching unnecessary and unproven hypothesis, assumptions,' to a model which does not require it. Creationism use modern cosmological idea which require no God for the idea to have merit. Tacking "God did it" is not required at all. It only serves the purpose of shoring up the troops aka believers.

But what you are in effect saying is that because science works without mentioning what is good, loving and beautiful, therefore what is good, loving and beautiful is irrelevant.

It is a matter of opinion whether love and hate are real, but this does not make love and hate irrelevant.

And William of Ockham knew this very well. He made argument that the existence of the soul can only be established by faith and revelation. He not only excluded any empirical evidence to establish the existence of the soul, he excluded any philosophical argument to establish the existence of it as well. So any argument which by a train of logic would have the conclusion that the soul exists, he excluded as wrong.

Yet Ockham believed the soul does exist, simply because he chose to, in accepting the Christian faith. And that is the sort of thing that started the scientific revolution. Only when fact and opinion became to be separated, each acknowledged in their own right, did science start to flourish.

 

[Shad]

But what you are in effect saying is that because science works without mentioning what is good, loving and beautiful, therefore what is good, loving and beautiful is irrelevant.

It is a matter of opinion whether love and hate are real, but this does not make love and hate irrelevant.

And William of Ockham knew this very well. He made argument that the existence of the soul can only be established by faith and revelation. He not only excluded any empirical evidence to establish the existence of the soul, he excluded any philosophical argument to establish the existence of it as well. So any argument which by a train of logic would have the conclusion that the soul exists, he excluded as wrong.

Yet Ockham believed the soul does exist, simply because he chose to, in accepting the Christian faith. And that is the sort of thing that started the scientific revolution. Only when fact and opinion became to be separated, each acknowledged in their own right, did science start to flourish.

These are subjective values assessments. What is beautiful to me may not be to you. I said nothing directly regarding science. However for a logical premise to be true it must be either it must be verified objectively or used as an axiom. Subjective opinions are irrelevant to objective facts which is what logic requires. One's subjective views of what is good is moot if they can not prove their subjective views are correct. How does good, loving and beautify bare any merit regarding Creatiomism which is the point in question You have constructed a strawman and avoid the point I made.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

These are subjective values assessments. What is beautiful to me may not be to you. I said nothing directly regarding science. However for a logical premise to be true it must be either it must be verified objectively or used as an axiom. Subjective opinions are irrelevant to objective facts which is what logic requires. One's subjective views of what is good is moot if they can not prove their subjective views are correct. How does good, loving and beautify bare any merit regarding Creatiomism which is the point in question You have constructed a strawman and avoid the point I made.

But creationism doesn't say it is a fact that God exists, religion is universally and overwhelmingy focused on faith, it is a matter of opinion that God exists.

So you create the strawman that creationists say it is a fact that God exists, and you argue against this strawman.

What is good, loving and beautiful is about what makes a decision turn out the way it does. God and the soul are also about what makes a decision turn out the way it does. So it is a fact that the material domain is chosen, but it is an opinion what it is that makes the decisions turn out the way they do.

 

[Shad]

No, there isn't an assertion, necessarily. That is where you are making the mistake. It is a logical conclusion, not something to be proven, same as any other theory for how matter came to be etc. The problem, and very misunderstood, idea for positing a non-creationist stance is that it isn't evidenced by what we observe. We don't observe things poofing into existence./'first cause' problem/. The argument to get around this fact is leaving a "blank" where creationism would be. In other words, any theory, no matter how irrational. Anyways, the point is that when a position is not taken, it can be a position by default, hence a negative assertion. An example could be, we generally observe round(ish) planets, so we conclude that most planets are round(ish), as opposed to cubes. If I state that my theory is that say, a hypothetical unseen yet observed planet is not round, but cube shaped, firstly, the 'proving' is on my side of the argument*, not those who assume a round(ish) planet. The similarity is in, any theory that would match, or require, or even infer, a cube shaped planet.

*Leaving a "blank" but declaring a different conclusion is by default making an assertion, as well. In this instance, ie opposition to creationism, there is hardly a way to not make an assertion without declaring oneself completely ignorant of the parameters necessary /logical/ to come to a reasonable conclusion.

A logical conclusion to be true requires it to be sound and valid. A valid form is that premises lead to the conclusion. A sound form is the premises are in fact true which guarantees that the conclusion is also true. If a premise can not be proven true then the argument does not guarantee the conclusion is true. If one invokes God as part of a premise than this is an assertion or axiom which people are free to reject within reason.

Modern creationism is built upon the "irrational theories" of modern cosmology. Both use the same physics, timeline to a point, regress models, etc. All creationism does is tack God on to the end of supposed irrational theories. So which is worse? The "irrational theory" or the "irrational theory" with tacked on assumptions. God leaves more questions than the concept answers. Unexplained answers are assumptions, nothing more.

 

[Shad]

But creationism doesn't say it is a fact that God exists, religion is universally and overwhelmingy focused on faith, it is a matter of opinion that God exists.

So you create the strawman that creationists say it is a fact that God exists, and you argue against this strawman.

What is good, loving and beautiful is about what makes a decision turn out the way it does. God and the soul are also about what makes a decision turn out the way it does. So it is a fact that the material domain is chosen, but it is an opinion what it is that makes the decisions turn out the way they do.

No creationism is a view of a divine act which requires an agent to do so. If you wish to define creationism outside it's normal use you are free to do so. However you never expressed such an opinion. Only now have you done so but only in an attempt as a red herring counter argument rather than a clarification upon your part. If creationism does not propose God exists as part of it's premises as true then logically it is unsound and need not be address further. If God is the conclusion with still maintaining God is not a fact than it is a false conclusion since the premises can not prove the conclusion making the argument invalid and unsound, ie false. So which form of the argument are you putting forward?

God and the soul are opinions as are the effects these assumptions have on our choices. However we have observed influences which do dictate our choices from culture, religion, environment, etc. Religion is an influence but one could argue that scripture, dogma and doctrine which is a human product is the influence rather than God itself. You require the assumption that God is a fact, that God dictated scripture in some manner and that current script is accurate to the dictations of God. I need not accept your assumption, I need only stop at what has been verified objectively which is all the formers are the products of humans.

Value assessments do have an influence on our choices. However it takes little research to show that in various places and times humans have made radically different choices due to the subjective nature of these values. The issue is subjective views must be proven objectively to be considered a fact. How does beauty, good or loving have anything to do with creationism?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No creationism is a view of a divine act which requires an agent to do so. If you wish to define creationism outside it's normal use you are free to do so. However you never expressed such an opinion. Only now have you done so but only in an attempt as a red herring counter argument rather than a clarification upon your part. If creationism does not propose God exists as part of it's premises as true then logically it is unsound and need not be address further. If God is the conclusion with still maintaining God is not a fact than it is a false conclusion since the premises can not prove the conclusion making the argument invalid and unsound, ie false. So which form of the argument are you putting forward?

God and the soul are opinions as are the effects these assumptions have on our choices. However we have observed influences which do dictate our choices from culture, religion, environment, etc. Religion is an influence but one could argue that scripture, dogma and doctrine which is a human product is the influence rather than God itself. You require the assumption that God is a fact, that God dictated scripture in some manner and that current script is accurate to the dictations of God. I need not accept your assumption, I need only stop at what has been verified objectively which is all the formers are the products of humans.

Value assessments do have an influence on our choices. However it takes little research to show that in various places and times humans have made radically different choices due to the subjective nature of these values. The issue is subjective views must be proven objectively to be considered a fact. How does beauty, good or loving have anything to do with creationism?

As I said, religion is openly and explicitly focused on faith, which is a form of opinion. That is the standard view and not only my view. If God would be considered a matter of fact issue, then religion would be focused on measuring, not faith.

You are still ruling out all opinion altogether about what is good, loving and beautiful. You need to explain how a statement of beauty is arrived at. I have already explained it, it is arrived at by choosing about what it is that chooses.

What is good, loving and beautiful is a matter of opinion, just like the existence of God is a matter of opinion.

Now you are even arguing towards freedom not being real. That is what atheists always do, they confuse sorting with choosing. With sorting the result is forced by the sortingcriteria, it is not the same thing as choosing.