Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Rick O'Shez]

Really you know in my experience evolutionists deliberately make these non-arguments. They pull all sorts of debating tactics, throw everything and the kitchensink at me

 

[joshua3886]

You can't teach non-science in a science room. There is NO scientific evidence for creationism. And the "theory" for creationism would mislead people about the proper scientific method.
You can't come up with a theory with no evidence, look for evidence to support it and then dismiss all evidence that contradicts it. You also can't use a book to prove itself. That's just stupid.
Science involves gathering evidence and THEN coming to a conclusion based on the evidence. And if new evidence comes along to debunk the current theory, then science is more than willing to change. Real science is fluid, not rigid.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Physiognomy (face measuring), phrenology (skull measuring), mri neurology (brainwave measuring), evolutionary psychology.

All these disciplines had or have large numbers of scientists who regard emotions as a matter of fact issue. Phrenology and physiognomie (which Darwin also used), have been discarded as pseudoscience. Physiognomy is making a comeback now, because of the increased popularity of evolution theory.

Universities are currently offering combined neurology and law studies, to bring neurology into the courtroom. This movement is by idealistic people who generally follow Dennet's line of reasoning that free will has the logic of sorting out an optimal result. Emotions are regarded as fact.

Evolutionary psychology operates with the paradigm that emotions are like software running on the brain hardware.

Communism and nazism were ofcourse most popular at universities, rather than with the population in general. Eugenics was everywhere in academics.

Around 1994 China adopted farreaching eugenic laws, including for instance forced sterilization for schizophrenics. About 70 percent of Chinese geneticists support that law. That's about 20 percent of the world living in an eugenic society. For it has to be understood that eugenics has farreaching consequences for the way people view people. It is not just a small aspect of disease control, it plays on the society in general, makes people think eugenically.

But it is completely obvious that the scientific community falls short on regarding love and hate as a matter of opinion, because of the widespread and unapologetic popularity of materialism in science. You will not get a job as a neurologist or biologist studying behaviour if you consider it a matter of opinion what emotions man or animal have.

Scientists are people and people can lie and be dishonest. Sapiens is simply rejecting freedom is real and relevant, rejecting the validity of opinion. My argumentation is the minimum knowledge about how choosing works, and he dismisses it without any argumentation whatsoever. It isn't different in academics, people are not more fair or honest in universities then they are here on the internet. Freedom is shafted, the validity of opinion is shafted, and they see to it that anybody working on such theory is thrown out of the university. That's how it goes, the support for knowledge about how choosing works only comes from creationists and spiritualist holistics and the like. The support from society for creation science does not come through, evolutionists have universities locked down against any research about how things are chosen in the universe.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You can't teach non-science in a science room. There is NO scientific evidence for creationism. And the "theory" for creationism would mislead people about the proper scientific method.
You can't come up with a theory with no evidence, look for evidence to support it and then dismiss all evidence that contradicts it. You also can't use a book to prove itself. That's just stupid.
Science involves gathering evidence and THEN coming to a conclusion based on the evidence. And if new evidence comes along to debunk the current theory, then science is more than willing to change. Real science is fluid, not rigid.

It's whatever, I have evidence that freedom is in fact real in my daily life. What you say is crucificition of common sense by the scientific method.

 

[The Hammer]

It's whatever, I have evidence that freedom is in fact real in my daily life. What you say is crucificition of common sense by the scientific method.

How is only teaching science in the classroom the "crucifixion of common sense"? I would think that teaching creationism (no evidence to support it), over hard science (has a lot of irrefutable evidence to support it) as the real crucifixion of common sense.

If someone is interested in, or wants to believe in creationism then fine, there is nothing wrong with that. Allow that person to seek out qualified people to teach these things in the proper settings, a church, mosque, synagogue or where ever else these teachings are popular. This need not be taught in school, where the goal is to learn things based on hard facts.

I don't go to a priest and ask him to teach me evolutionary theory or physics, why should one expect a teacher of science to teach creationism? Leave it where it belongs. One belongs in a classroom, the other belongs in a religious setting.

 

[dawny0826]

Then religious viewpoint isn't credible to be taught. Makes no sense. Also, "science" is not the topic of the OP...but it does help to know the subject of the thread.

The op states that creationism should be the foundation of science. I don't accept that creationism is a scientific concept. I believe that elements of creationism may have been achieved through scientific process. It's the latter that holds the greatest credibility in broad terms.

In certain situations and to certain audiences, it would be quite fine to teach that creationism is the foundation of science but, not within the secular setting.

 

[Midnight Rain]

We use different definitions of both fact and opinion. Obviously no matter how many evolutionists agree with you, they would still all be wrong, what you are saying is simply false.

Can you demonstrate it? You have not demonstrated it in this thread. I have looked. So do not say you have already done so.

Your definition is not what everyone else matches to.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Can you demonstrate it? You have not demonstrated it in this thread. I have looked. So do not say you have already done so.

Your definition is not what everyone else matches to.

In reply to one of your postings, I have demonstrated the logic of how a statement "the painting is beautiful" is arrived at. As fully consistent with common discourse, and consistent with science about how choosing works.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The op states that creationism should be the foundation of science. I don't accept that creationism is a scientific concept. I believe that elements of creationism may have been achieved through scientific process. It's the latter that holds the greatest credibility in broad terms.

In certain situations and to certain audiences, it would be quite fine to teach that creationism is the foundation of science but, not within the secular setting.

You have not understood that what this is about is the generic creationist framework, irrespective of how many days of creation, or how many decisions, irrespective of the identity of the creator. Simply the creationist framework that things in the universe are chosen, and that it is a matter of opinion what it is that makes the decisions turn out the way they do.

This framework grounds subjectivity, opinion, as well as objectivity, facts. It is the only philosophy with which you can as well establish the fact that the earth is round, as form an opinion that the earth is beautiful.

Teaching creationism in a secular setting students would result in students rebelling and asserting it is a matter of fact what is good and evil, and not accept the validity of opinion. I would also advise against that, although I don't know for sure how it would really play out. In any case people naturally have an enormously strong conviction to treat what is good and evil as a matter of fact, and are not likely to accept creationism without putting up a fight.

 

[Midnight Rain]

In reply to one of your postings, I have demonstrated the logic of how a statement "the painting is beautiful" is arrived at. As fully consistent with common discourse, and consistent with science about how choosing works.

No. You have not. "Why is the painting beautiful?" is not simply answered by "choice". For one thing a person doesn't have the direct ability to find something beautiful or not. It is an innate property. The person can change the criteria in their mind in how they judge the painting to change the way they feel but not innately. And why do they feel that way? Why do some feel that way and others don't? Are there universal properties to beauty? Why and why not?

Its a complex mesh of things that cannot simply be explained away as "choice". That is an over simplification at best. Horribly incorrect at worst.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Teaching creationism in a secular setting students would result in students rebelling and asserting it is a matter of fact what is good and evil, and not accept the validity of opinion. I would also advise against that, although I don't know for sure how it would really play out. In any case people naturally have an enormously strong conviction to treat what is good and evil as a matter of fact, and are not likely to accept creationism without putting up a fight.

No one asserts what is "good" and "evil" by a matter of fact except religious organizations.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In any case people naturally have an enormously strong conviction to treat what is good and evil as a matter of fact, and are not likely to accept creationism without putting up a fight.

Good job too.

 

[dawny0826]

You have not understood that what this is about is the generic creationist framework, irrespective of how many days of creation, or how many decisions, irrespective of the identity of the creator. Simply the creationist framework that things in the universe are chosen, and that it is a matter of opinion what it is that makes the decisions turn out the way they do.

I'd be angry as hell if you suggested such to my children in a secular educational setting. End of story.

This framework grounds subjectivity, opinion, as well as objectivity, facts. It is the only philosophy with which you can as well establish the fact that the earth is round, as form an opinion that the earth is beautiful.

It reads like bull crap. Many are capable of subjectivity and objectivity without subscribing to the concept of a creator.

Teaching creationism in a secular setting students would result in students rebelling and asserting it is a matter of fact what is good and evil, and not accept the validity of opinion. I would also advise against that, although I don't know for sure how it would really play out. In any case people naturally have an enormously strong conviction to treat what is good and evil as a matter of fact, and are not likely to accept creationism without putting up a fight.

More like, teaching a concept that is not based in scientific fact would anger those who don't have the time and patience for education that isn't grounded in fact.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No. You have not. "Why is the painting beautiful?" is not simply answered by "choice". For one thing a person doesn't have the direct ability to find something beautiful or not. It is an innate property. The person can change the criteria in their mind in how they judge the painting to change the way they feel but not innately. And why do they feel that way? Why do some feel that way and others don't? Are there universal properties to beauty? Why and why not?

Its a complex mesh of things that cannot simply be explained away as "choice". That is an over simplification at best. Horribly incorrect at worst.

You can only form an opinion by choosing the conclusion. Facts are obtained by evidence forcing to a copy or model of what is evidenced. That is obvious, and that is creationism.

I notice how you are confused about the fact that I have given you an explanation, with your opinion that my explanation is wrong. You make of that, that I have not given you an explanation.

You are confusing opinion with fact because you fail to acknowledge the line between matters of opinion and matters of fact, which line is exactly between what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, opinion, and the resulting decision, fact.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No one asserts what is "good" and "evil" by a matter of fact except religious organizations.

You have just rejected that an opinion requires choosing the conclusion.

 

[gnostic]

You can only form an opinion by choosing the conclusion. Facts are obtained by evidence forcing to a copy or model of what is evidenced. That is obvious, and that is creationism.

I notice how you are confused about the fact that I have given you an explanation, with your opinion that my explanation is wrong. You make of that, that I have not given you an explanation.

You are confusing opinion with fact because you fail to acknowledge the line between matters of opinion and matters of fact, which line is exactly between what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, opinion, and the resulting decision, fact.

You keep digging a hole for yourself, to bury yourself in.

It would seem that for one such as yourself, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'd be angry as hell if you suggested such to my children in a secular educational setting. End of story.

It reads like bull crap. Many are capable of subjectivity and objectivity without subscribing to the concept of a creator.

More like, teaching a concept that is not based in scientific fact would anger those who don't have the time and patience for education that isn't grounded in fact.

I don't believe you have anger, I don't have to believe it because it is a matter of opinion, and I choose not to. And that's how to deal with people who don't accept the freedom of opinon.

 

[LuisDantas]

Freedom of opinion is no excuse to preach misinformation and obscuratism. Particularly when it means harming children education.

 

[joshua3886]

It's whatever, I have evidence that freedom is in fact real in my daily life. What you say is crucificition of common sense by the scientific method.

It's not rocket science: keep your religion in your own church and keep it out of public classrooms. Scientists don't want religion in their labs and religious people don't want science in their church.
Science needs to get a restraining order against religion, but religion keeps trying to convince itself that science will eventually come around. Like some crazy, stalker ex.

 

[gnostic]

I don't believe you have anger, I don't have to believe it because it is a matter of opinion, and I choose not to. And that's how to deal with people who don't accept the freedom of opinon.

No one here is against freedom of opinion, Mohammad.

We just don't like people making things up, which is what you are doing.

You keep thinking opinions and facts are one and the same, but they are not. And earlier on in your thread, you keep associating scientists with atheists. Neither of them true, and the whole atheist-jibe at science, is shameless generalization.

As I have already pointed out to you, there are a number of theists or religious people who had posted here, also think religion should be kept out of science classrooms, so why are you generalizing of something that's not true.