Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Parsimony]

Nope.

 

[gnostic]

Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

Genesis 1 - 8 doesn't teach anything about science. And the bible is a book of theology, not science.

So to answer your question, absolutely not.

Does the bible explain ANYTHING, "scientifically"?

No. All it do is describe the 6-day creation, very briefly and sketchy.

For instance, it doesn't tell us anything about biology of plants/vegetation (3rd day), and of animals and humans (6th day). No lesson or explanation on human anatomy. Just humans being made, in the image of God, and nothing else. What the hell is God's image?

And in the next chapter, it described adult humans being made at the Garden of Eden, with man being made out of dust, and woman out of man's rib...as in poof, MAGIC.

That's not science. That's supernatural/superstitious/mythological NONSENSE!

Science required details, an explanation. Genesis doesn't supply that. Just the magical POOF for each day.

And, then there is the creation of light.

On the first day, light was created, and it divided day from night. There is no source for this light, because the Sun (as well as moon and stars) were created until the fourth day. The light just appeared suddenly, giving the Earth day and night, without the need for the Sun. This is more pseudoscience, meaning Genesis 1 is not at all scientific.

The Sun has everything to with our daylight, and our planet rotated on its axis. Where it shine, we get daylight, but on the other side of the planet, the Earth is shaded, hence night.

This brief description of mine, give more scientific information than Genesis 1:3-5, 1:14-19, about where daylight source come from. All of which, don't require god. Of course, the astronomical phenomena is more complex than my short description, but I can provide that.

Have you read the Book of Job, Mohammad?

God give silly description of how natural events occur. Like how snow and rain were stored in the storehouse. And it also say that stars in the sky - SING!!!

What UTTER NONSENSE! And completely UNSCIENTIFIC!

Combining Genesis 1 to 3, and description of the Book of Job, where God boast of his powers, clearly showed that the authors of both books, have no understanding whatsoever of science.

Science is about providing knowledge or explanation of natural and of man-made phenomena, that can either be verified through evidences or testings, or through mathematical models and equations (like theoretical physics).

The Bible, Genesis and creationism should never be taught in the science classroom, because IT CONTAIN NOTHING OF SCIENTIFIC VALUE!

 

[Jumi]

Would this education also include those rocks with freewill you were talking about that try to steal from other rocks? If so, this education plan of yours would lead to the new dark ages.

 

[Midnight Rain]

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.

First off the idea of materialism is that we go under the assumption that there is nothing else. Not that we deny the possibility of there being anything else. The reason for this is because of empirical evidenced based reasoning being so successful. If there is evidence for something then you can take the scientific stance on its existence. But if there is not evidence for it then there is no reason to support it.

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.

I am not an atheist (though I don't believe in a single all powerful all knowing god that exists as a single entity) but you cannot say they are "simply wrong" without counter evidence. I will never tell an atheist that their philosophy is "wrong" because I don't have the ability to provide evidence against that.

How does it ruin subjective thins? What has been ruined?

Religion has destroyed itself on most occasions. And if skepticism destroys it then it should be destroyed. Marriage hasn't been affected in the slightest. Friendships are only affected if one individual has the audacity to try and force their beliefs on the other .Countries have been destroyed by ideology but not by Atheism that I can ever think of.

You need to support these claims.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Would this education also include those rocks with freewill you were talking about that try to steal from other rocks? If so, this education plan of yours would lead to the new dark ages.

...for the last time, that was tit for tat, to an evolutionist referencing a satirical article on "intelligent falling". Grow a brain.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

First off the idea of materialism is that we go under the assumption that there is nothing else. Not that we deny the possibility of there being anything else. The reason for this is because of empirical evidenced based reasoning being so successful. If there is evidence for something then you can take the scientific stance on its existence. But if there is not evidence for it then there is no reason to support it.

I am not an atheist (though I don't believe in a single all powerful all knowing god that exists as a single entity) but you cannot say they are "simply wrong" without counter evidence. I will never tell an atheist that their philosophy is "wrong" because I don't have the ability to provide evidence against that.

How does it ruin subjective thins? What has been ruined?

Religion has destroyed itself on most occasions. And if skepticism destroys it then it should be destroyed. Marriage hasn't been affected in the slightest. Friendships are only affected if one individual has the audacity to try and force their beliefs on the other .Countries have been destroyed by ideology but not by Atheism that I can ever think of.

You need to support these claims.

You need to unequivocally validate opinion, that you choose in forming an opinion. Acknowledge the freedom of opinion.

 

[metis]

[addressed to Rumi]...Grow a brain.

With an insult like this, is your belief in a god actually doing you any good whatsoever?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

With an insult like this, is your belief in a god actually doing you any good whatsoever?

Obviously your sense of justice, fairness, is lacking. That is very typical of atheists, because it is subjective. This yumi did not read the posts in the thread, and continues to misrepresent me, even I pointed it out again and again.

 

[metis]

Obviously your sense of justice, fairness, is lacking. That is very typical of atheists, because it is subjective. This yumi did not read the posts in the thread, and continues to misrepresent me, even I pointed it out again and again.

Except that I'm not an atheist, so sorry that your stereotyping doesn't again work. And since you really don't know me, how could you possibly know that " your sense of justice, fairness, is lacking".

It appears to me that you're your own worst enemy. Which other people and groups do you stereotype?

 

[Midnight Rain]

You need to unequivocally validate opinion, that you choose in forming an opinion. Acknowledge the freedom of opinion.

There is no need to unequivocally validate an opinion. Have support for the reasons why you hold an opinion yes. But it isn't distinctly required.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Except that I'm not an atheist, so sorry that your stereotyping doesn't again work. And since you really don't know me, how could you possibly know that " your sense of justice, fairness, is lacking".

It appears to me that you're your own worst enemy. Which other people and groups do you stereotype?

The stereotype is besides the point. You do not validate opinion, that is the point.

 

[Midnight Rain]

The stereotype is besides the point. You do not validate opinion, that is the point.

What is an example of validating an opinion?

Validate an opinion for me.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is no need to unequivocally validate an opinion. Have support for the reasons why you hold an opinion yes. But it isn't distinctly required.

So then obviously that way oughts and ought nots come in the fact category. That is logic. You must validate opinion as distinct from fact, to keep the opinions out of the facts category.

 

[Midnight Rain]

So then obviously that way oughts and ought nots come in the fact category. That is logic. You must validate opinion as distinct from fact, to keep the opinions out of the facts category.

If something becomes unequivocal then it is no longer an opinion.

The earth goes round the sun. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. Short sleeve shirts over long sleeve shirts looks good is an opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

My goodness...so much word salad.

Reproductive 'success' simply doesn't mean what you're conflating it with. It's not a measure of morality. That you completely misunderstand it is unsurprising, given that you also completely misrepresent atheism, and make ridiculous unsupported assertions about it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What is an example of validating an opinion?

Validate an opinion for me.

The painting is beautiful.

The conclusion "beautiful" must be chosen. The answer "ugly" must be available to choose as well.
The word "beautiful" must be in reference to what chooses. In this case, in reference to a love of the way the painting looks. Love chooses the word beautiful.

Those are the basic requirements for an opinion. Then one can add more requirements about the way it is chosen.

So it means when somebody is forced to a conclusion, and then asserts it as an opinion, then it is invalid.

Or if somebody asserts that love is brainchemistry, then it is also invalid as an opinion, because the brainchemistry can be measured as fact.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If something becomes unequivocal then it is no longer an opinion.

The earth goes round the sun. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. Short sleeve shirts over long sleeve shirts looks good is an opinion.

The way forming an opinion works is also a matter of fact. Eventhough the existence of what chooses the opinion, is a matter of opinion, the decision is fact.

 

[YmirGF]

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.

What kind of rubbish is this? Better facts? Facts are facts, one fact is not "better" than another fact... and that's the fact.

As for my opinions, I choose to have them grounded in facts. For the record, I know as much about so-called "creationist twaddle", oops, sorry, "Creationist psychosis".... doh... dang keyboard.... "creationist philosophy" as any sane person would want to know. You make it sound like creationists actually have good points. That IS news.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

My goodness...so much word salad.

Reproductive 'success' simply doesn't mean what you're conflating it with. It's not a measure of morality. That you completely misunderstand it is unsurprising, given that you also completely misrepresent atheism, and make ridiculous unsupported assertions about it.

I don't misunderstand anything because I can distinghuish fact from opinion. But darwinist scientists are very bad at distinghuishing fact from opinion, because they typically do not have a distinct category for opinions

 

[YmirGF]

I don't misunderstand anything because I can distinghuish fact from opinion. But darwinist scientists are very bad at distinghuishing fact from opinion, because they typically do not have a distinct category for opinions

And Muslims wonder why people don't take them very seriously.