Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Dirty Penguin]

...and this is rational?

Yes because "freedom" is a subjective concept.

Brain correlates of subjective freedom of choice. - PubMed - NCBI

The subjective feeling of free choice is an important feature of human experience. Experimental tasks have typically studied free choice by contrasting free and instructed selection of response alternatives. These tasks have been criticised, and it remains unclear how they relate to the subjective feeling of freely choosing. We replicated previous findings of the fMRI correlates of free choice, defined objectively. We introduced a novel task in which participants could experience and report a graded sense of free choice. BOLD responses for conditions subjectively experienced as free identified a postcentral area distinct from the areas typically considered to be involved in free action. Thus, the brain correlates of subjective feeling of free action were not directly related to any established brain correlates of objectively-defined free action. Our results call into question traditional assumptions about the relation between subjective experience of choosing and activity in the brain's so-called voluntary motor areas.

 

[outhouse]

I already mentioned, certainly more than 20 times in this topic, that by choosing new things are created.

You mentioned it, but how does choosing create anything?

Making a choice creates nothing. You need to explain this better.

 

[outhouse]

It is plainly obvious that the evolutionist movement is dominated, awash, by militant anti-religious, anti-freedom of opinion sort of people. The atheistic hordes.

Evolution is fact, and taught in every credible university around the whole world.

Do you think every single higher learning institution are anti theist, and people against freedom?

Do you have any examples of this?

 

[Sapiens]

It is plainly obvious that the evolutionist movement is dominated, awash, by militant anti-religious, anti-freedom of opinion sort of people. The atheistic hordes.

It is plainly obvious that the Islamic movement it dominate, awash, by militant jihadists, anti-freedom of opinion sort of people who believe that anything that is heresey in their view is deserving of death.

I'll take the evolutionists, thank you.

I just don't understand how anybody religious can still associate themselves with the evolution movement.

I just don't understand how anybody with a brain and any sense of morality and knowledge of history can still associate themselves with Islamism.

I understand people caring about the facts of evolution, but isn't it obvious that supporting the evolutionist movement in practical effect means to not care about the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe?

I understand people caring about religion, but isn't it obvious that supporting Islamism in practical effect means turning back the clock of human progress to about 600 CE and not caring at all about the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe?

Supporting evolution theory in practice means children and adults who have a whack view of the universe, in which the reality of freedom is not acknowledged. How is that in any really practical way providing people with a more accurate view of nature???

Not supporting evolution theory in practice means children and adults are left with a whack view of the universe, in which the reality of the origins of life and biological diversity, in which the very basis of all modern biological is ignored. How is that in any way providing people with a practical, theoretical or more accurate view of nature???

 

[Shad]

Your whole complaint against creationism is based on the shortcomings of science in proving freedom is a reality.

In my book, when you have thrown out the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, then you have lost the argument. Then you are besides any reason, any reality, you are only just playing a mindgame.

For the rest, you misrepresent my argumentation a lot. You continuously pretend that creationism asserts it is a fact that God exists. No matter that you have been told more than 5 times already that the existence, or non-existence of God is categorically a matter of opinion in creationism. That sort of misrepresentation is typical evolutionist "fighting for the cause" regardless of honesty. I don't think you can be reasoned with.

No the short comings from the science side is lack of objective proof which is falsifiable. The philosophical side the soundness. I never thrown out freedom, said there is no such concept as freedom nor that agents have no freedom. You are constructing a strawman. You think I have this view because I reject your sophistry which includes freedom. However I can remove freedom from your idea and drop the garbage at the side of the road. This either proves you lack reading comprehension or you are willing to lie to cover your ***.

God is an opinion as you say. However when one puts forward God as part of a concept such as creationism this is asserting God is true. This is the function of premises in a formal logic argument. If one takes premises as true they can evaluate the validity of an argument. Now to prove the soundness of the arguments one must ask if the premises are in fact true. If a premises is false or unproven the argument is not sound. An argument must both be sound and valid. Being valid is meaningless if not sound

All redheads are dumb (opinion, assertions or axiom)
Bob is a redhead (fact)
Therefore Bob is dumb. (conclusion)

This is logical valid but premise 1 make the argument unsound.

Saying this in response to my argumentation means that you assert that science can say what is good, loving and beautiful.

We can see lots of political regimes communist and nazi, stating as fact what is good and evil. We can see that this mixing fact with opinion is a real problem in society.

You have previously stated what is good, loving and beautiful is not a matter of science. But here you begin with saying an opinion is correct when it matches facts.

It means that the materialistic logic you use pushes you in the direction of arguing that what is good, loving and beatiful is a matter of fact. It is simply logical that from the point of view of materialism, photosynthesis is a matter of fact, dust on my table is a matter of fact, the knack in the plant is a matter of fact, every little thing.......everything is a matter of fact, including what is good, loving and beautiful. That is the direction of argument materialism logically pushes towards.

You argue towards it what is good and evil being a fact. But then completely separate from your materialism you have a value which says that it is wrong to make what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact, so then you correct yourself.

But in practical reality this still means that your values are hollowed out by materialism. And it is shown in history that this is a real problem. How come you would be better at distinguising facts from opinion than tens of millions of nazi Germans, and communist Sovjets? Why should anybody trust you about that?

No I have already covered that science can address certain concepts which are verifiable within the scientific method. If creationism matches science as you claim then God is a scientific fact. However God is not a fact. Unproven opinion is useless in science and can be dismissed.. After all your are the one that said creationism matches science not I. You put your concept within science not I. You put the ball in the court of science and get angry when someone dares to use science against your claims. Nice double standard you have. How does one evaluate an opinion as correct or not? By the support the opinion has and the support against such an opinion. This is how we can judge an opinion. No you do not like this evaluation but tough luck.

Beauty, love, etc are red herring as I am not address either concept. You require your red herring as you have no defense or in fact no argument but rather statements. "I like ice cream" is different from "I think creationism matches science". One is testable, one is not. You are the one that put your idea into a field which does test it's ideas and proves it's ideas. I never argued for good or evil as fact. Another red herring. I never corrected myself. Rather you made red herring comments, ignore what people write and make up statements in your mind. You then cry out about errors you have made up, congratulations on defeating your own strawmans and red herrings.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Why don't you go write to those scientists then about how they are wrong about their ideas that the totality of the universe is nothing.

If there is a scientist who states that then I will. As of right now that is not the current theory.

 

[Not Bob]

Intelligent design requires facts about decisions made, but the identity of the designer is still a matter of opinion.

This is very clear, because even for people which we obviously can see, there is no evidence of their soul. The soul is what does the designing, the existence of the soul is a matter of opinion. So even for people there is no evidence of a designer, there is only evidence of how it is designed, how it is chosen.

Take for instance an object like a gun. One might see it as an expression of justice, or one might see it as an expression of murder. It is a matter of opinion.

Intelligent Design necessarily requires a defined Intelligent Designer. Given your example of the soul as designer, if the existence of the soul is no more than opinion, that is, if the existence of the soul can't be proven as fact, then the argument in favor of the soul being designer is baseless and without merit.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Intelligent Design necessarily requires a defined Intelligent Designer. Given your example of the soul as designer, if the existence of the soul is no more than opinion, that is, if the existence of the soul can't be proven as fact, then the argument in favor of the soul being designer is baseless and without merit.

The concept of choosing does not work without making it a matter of opinion what the agency of the decision is, which makes the decision turn out the way it does.

Consequently science about choosing, the mathematics of it, provides no symbol for what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. It simply fumctions without it.

We can see that in our common knowledge all subjective statements apply to what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Is the title of the thread a joke?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is the title of the thread a joke?

It appears not.

 

[Sapiens]

It's one of those "Do you still beat your wife?" things. I think that it is called a "loaded question" though just what species' defecant it is loaded with is still open to question.

 

[serp777]

For starters, no offense, but don't Muslim parents ever get tired of calling their kid Mohammad? I mean its about as cliche as Joe, or Bob. It's also kind of weird because it would be like a Christian family calling their kid Jesus. I never understood the Muslim's family naming logic there.

Facts are facts regardless of opinion. Evolution is a stone cold fact. There's a plethora of genetic, fossil, and computer simulation evidence confirming evolution. There's also modern examples of evolution that have occurred in our lifetime--new species of anti biotic bacetria that plague hospitals and threaten modern society to a point where infections will kill millions every year.

The third option should be "No, parents teaching their children creationism should be fined repeatedly or punished to do community service by cleaning up trash on highways for teaching their children unscientific garbage that only hurts a well balanced education centered on facts with about as much evidence as gravity"

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

For starters, no offense, but don't Muslim parents ever get tired of calling their kid Mohammad? I mean its about as cliche as Joe, or Bob. It's also kind of weird because it would be like a Christian family calling their kid Jesus. I never understood the Muslim's family naming logic there.

Facts are facts regardless of opinion. Evolution is a stone cold fact. There's a plethora of genetic, fossil, and computer simulation evidence confirming evolution. There's also modern examples of evolution that have occurred in our lifetime--new species of anti biotic bacetria that plague hospitals and threaten modern society to a point where infections will kill millions every year.

The third option should be "No, parents teaching their children creationism should be fined repeatedly or punished to do community service by cleaning up trash on highways for teaching their children unscientific garbage that only hurts a well balanced education centered on facts with about as much evidence as gravity"

About an accurate picture of one of these fascisticly inclined mindsets of evolurionists. To disregard emotions altogether.

 

[serp777]

About an accurate picture of one of these fascisticly inclined mindsets of evolurionists. To disregard emotions altogether.

What a great rebuttal; oh wait you didn't say anything here at all.

 

[gnostic]

For starters, no offense, but don't Muslim parents ever get tired of calling their kid Mohammad? I mean its about as cliche as Joe, or Bob. It's also kind of weird because it would be like a Christian family calling their kid Jesus. I never understood the Muslim's family naming logic there.

It is called - lack of imagination - or lack of originality.

The only other popular option for a new male son is Abdul, but that name is wearing thin too.

And you have to wonder why they got all flustered up or upset over a boy naming a teddy-bear - Muhammad - at school, that nearly earn an English teacher prison term, flogging or stoning for blasphemy.

 

[serp777]

It is called - lack of imagination - or lack of originality.

The only other popular option for a new male son is Abdul, but that name is wearing thin too.

And you have to wonder why they got all flustered up or upset over a boy naming a teddy-bear - Muhammad - at school, that nearly earn an English teacher prison term, flogging or stoning for blasphemy.

Yeah I guess so. Its also weird because Muslims get so offended by showing a video or picture or muhammad, and yet they aren't afraid to name their kids after him.

They also treat blasphemy like the worst thing in the world. Seriously they need to grow up a little bit and stop getting so butthurt because people make fun of them. I mean i've seen kindergartners act more mature to being made fun of than prominent Muslims. And some muslims act just like kindergartners--crying to the UN about blasphemy and asking them to make it illegal.

 

[LuisDantas]

About an accurate picture of one of these fascisticly inclined mindsets of evolurionists. To disregard emotions altogether.

That has become a catch-all answer, hasn't it? One of these days it will actually fit the post it responds, if only by statistical chance.

 

[dust1n]

If Creationism was so great and true, there would be no need to teach it to anyone.