Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But one cannot simply have an eye witness account without something to back it up. Someone can describe an incredibly in depth eye witness account of a unicorn but it wouldn't make it evidence for a unicorn. However showing the hoofprints, having a strand of its hair, a photo, video, digital sound recording or a live creature to back that up would give it credibility.

Teaching critical thinking and skepticism in order to better the observational skills of individuals is a good skill to have but that is not the basis of science.

Who said anything about an eye witness account without evidence?

One must copy, accurately, exhaustively, fron nature to obtain facts.

One can also accurately and exhaustively copy what you have in imagination, like a leprechaun, and then you have all the facts about this fantasyfigure.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Who cares what so-called "Intelligent design" requires? It is not a scientific theory. Likewise, insistence on any designer is most probably confirmation bias at work.

There is so much wrong in this sentence I am at a bit of a loss as where to start. So, something that is a matter of opinion is somehow the "designer"? Really?

I see a gun more as a weapon, my feelings about guns are irrelevant.

Your feelings about guns are very relevant to your opinion about guns. Opinions matter very much.

 

[metis]

With creationism facts only can be taught in science class. By learning creationism students will be better to distinguish fact from opinion, and produce pure facts in science class, without their opinion mixed into the facts.

Except that "creationism" is not in any way science.

 

[Midnight Rain]

You are in fact telling people what ought and ought not as scientific fact, despite your denials. That is shown by that you do not distinguish fact from opinion. The only category you have is fact, so guess where the ought and ought nots are going to end up? They will end up in the fact category, despite your denial.

What "ought' and "ought nots" are scientifically established?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Who said anything about an eye witness account without evidence?

One must copy, accurately, exhaustively, fron nature to obtain facts.

One can also accurately and exhaustively copy what you have in imagination, like a leprechaun, and then you have all the facts about this fantasyfigure.

Good. Now that we have established this, how does it support creationism?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What "ought' and "ought nots" are scientifically established?

Nonresponsive. In evolutiontheory for example there is talk of differential reproductive "success". Normal interpretation of this is that one ought to reproduce. For instance if 2 women compete to have the most children within 10 years, then they would talk of reproductive success, and the success conveys a morality that reproduction is good. It is only because of creationist philosophy where fact and opinion are distinguished, that one can regard the language of natural selection theory as metaphorical, and distinguish the facts from the metaphorical language.

 

[Valjean]

Science studies mechanism. Creationism does not deal with mechanism. Creationism is belief in magic.

Without evidence, all metaphysical beliefs are equal -- and invalid. The beliefs of the Buddhists, Muslims and Trobriand islanders are all logically equal.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Good. Now that we have established this, how does it support creationism?

Because only creationism validates both fact and opinion. Once you have validated both, only then can you proceed to distinghuish fact from opinion, thus arriving at pure facts

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Teach science in science classes. Creationism is a religious belief and might be part of religious education.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Nonresponsive. In evolutiontheory for example there is talk of differential reproductive "success". Normal interpretation of this is that one ought to reproduce. For instance if 2 women compete to have the most children within 10 years, then they would talk of reproductive success, and the success conveys a morality that reproduction is good. It is only because of creationist philosophy where fact and opinion are distinguished, that one can regard the language of natural selection theory as metaphorical, and distinguish the facts from the metaphorical language.

Actually it makes no claim for this. It is not "moral" to simply reproduce. In fact if we took a Darwinian approach it would be immoral to reproduce if you had a disability or if you were sub-par genetically. However that is not "morality" that we have or develop. If one was to make that assumption based on the scientific data that would be a philosophical school of thought not a scientific claim.

Because only creationism validates both fact and opinion. Once you have validated both, only then can you proceed to distinghuish fact from opinion, thus arriving at pure facts

Did you mean violate, violated and dismantle?

I will assume you did not mean that. In what way does creationism "validate" fact? Name one fact it validates.

But here is also a hint. You need not validate fact and opinion. You need only validate fact. Opinion needs to conform to that fact.

 

[YmirGF]

Your feelings about guns are very relevant to your opinion about guns. Opinions matter very much.

Well, duh. Opinions are wonderful things but it is helpful is ones opinions are supported by facts rather than wistful thinking.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well, duh. Opinions are wonderful things but it is helpful is ones opinions are supported by facts rather than wistful thinking.

You can only arrive at an opinion by choosing the conclusion. You are confusing how to obtain facts with how to obtain an opinion. You would have immediate practical benefit in learning creationist philosophy. Better facts, and better opinions.

 

[Valjean]

Because only creationism validates both fact and opinion. Once you have validated both, only then can you proceed to distinghuish fact from opinion, thus arriving at pure facts

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.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Actually it makes no claim for this. It is not "moral" to simply reproduce. In fact if we took a Darwinian approach it would be immoral to reproduce if you had a disability or if you were sub-par genetically. However that is not "morality" that we have or develop. If one was to make that assumption based on the scientific data that would be a philosophical school of thought not a scientific claim.


Did you mean violate, violated and dismantle?

I will assume you did not mean that. In what way does creationism "validate" fact? Name one fact it validates.

But here is also a hint. You need not validate fact and opinion. You need only validate fact. Opinion needs to conform to that fact.

See, so for example: your opinion that guns are bad is fact. An opinion conforming to a fact. You simply are a social darwinist of a kind. Opinion requires a distinct category, a different logic from how to obtain a fact.

One can just see all those nauseating socialist politicians who pontificate that smoking is in fact bad, that homosexuality is in fact good, and whatever. This improper socialdarwinistic certitude in matters of opinion is very apparent amongst certain groups of people.

 

[Valjean]

You can only arrive at an opinion by choosing the conclusion. You are confusing how to obtain facts with how to obtain an opinion. You would have immediate practical benefit in learning creationist philosophy. Better facts, and better opinions.

An opinion arrived at by choice is not a valid opinion. I may choose to believe that 2+2=5, but this is not a valid belief unless it's based on observable, testable facts.

Better facts, and better opinions

But creationism is not based on facts. It's unsupported speculation, no more valid than the Pastafarian creation myth.

 

[The Hammer]

It's called a "complex question fallacy".

I knew it was a fallacy, I just didn't want to look up which one lol.

 

[Skwim]

Hey guys, Mohammad Nur Syamsu is trolling you.

Sorry to see you take his bait.

 

[averageJOE]

From Bill Nye: "Do you have a creation model that predicts something will happen in nature?"

 

[Midnight Rain]

See, so for example: your opinion that guns are bad is fact. An opinion conforming to a fact. You simply are a social darwinist of a kind. Opinion requires a distinct category, a different logic from how to obtain a fact.

One can just see all those nauseating socialist politicians who pontificate that smoking is in fact bad, that homosexuality is in fact good, and whatever. This improper socialdarwinistic certitude in matters of opinion is very apparent amongst certain groups of people.

An opinion that guns are bad is never a fact. You can have the opinion based on facts. You can say that it is a fact that having guns in the household increases the risk of children shooting themselves or something and then say "based on this I am opposed to guns' but at the same time someone could say "without guns you wouldn't be able to enforce the laws and my opinion is that we should be able to have access to a way to protect ourselves" and that would be the opinion based on the facts.

But you cannot simply say that you are against guns and that is an objective fact.

We can get into the opinions on homosexuality and the way that it is deemed "good" for example is that it is a humanitarian issue. If we are to propose an already established opinion that is fairly universal such as equality and humanitarianism then we can show how it is a fact that discrimination against homosexuality is going against these already established opinions.

Smoking is another good one. It is an established fact that smoking is harmful to your health. However we still have people who smoke. They smoke because in their opinion what they get from smoking is more valuable to them than the detriment. And no amount of logic or discovered facts will change that.

This is the basis of why "fact" can shape an opinion but not dictate it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I want all the religious people to think very carefully if they are really sure atheists and the like support actual freedom of opinion. Where is the validation of opinion in materialism, physicalism, philosophical naturalism etc.

Atheists etc. are simply wrong. They have not made any accommodation for subjectivity whatsoever. They are straightforwardly and obviously wrong, and it ruins all things subjective in life. Not just ruins religion, but also ruins marriage, friendship and country. It is not okay to fail to provide explicit validation of opinion, expression of emotion, as a right.