Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Midnight Rain]

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.

Wrong.

If I think that a painting is beautiful then it is a subjective opinion. Now on what grounds do I base that opinion? It has good color contrast, correct proportion and is clear. All three of those things are objective facts about the painting in which I base my opinion. However it is possible that I do not like the painting. Why? It has all of these objectively true things about it? The answer is because opinion is based off of facts or beliefs but we choose which facts and beliefs are important to us. Perhaps someone didn't like the painting because it was proportional. Perhaps they felt that the art would have been better if it was exaggerated for emphasis? Or perhaps there was nothing "wrong" but it was simply not up to par with their expectations?

The fact that our emotions come from chemistry in the brain is a fact. But that does not make our feelings and opinions "fact".

 

[Midnight Rain]

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.

Decisions are not facts. It may be a "fact" that I have an "opinion" but my opinion isn't definitively fact.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

Whew...glad I'm not one of those darwinist scientists, then. Personally, I'm a big fan of opinion. I offer mine up all the time. Of course, I generally flag it as 'opinion' when I do so, and at this point I have no idea what your take on that is. I mean, combine that with the fact that I'm an atheist (hey, I said 'fact'!) and I just get lost where I fit in your little strawman construction, to be honest.

 

[Faybull]

Perpetuation is design, and it is intelligent.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Perpetuation is design, and it is intelligent.

Not all perpetuation appears intelligent to me.

 

[Faybull]

Not all perpetuation appears intelligent to me.

Well, the mechanisms driving perpetuation, are the intellect I am referring to. So that the parts serve the whole. I mean, who sees the light, if all there is, is light?

So take mutations for example, the consequences of it, don't always produce a benefit for a species to survive, but the fact that mutations occur and the eventual production of a gene that does help, in order to adapt and survive, is the whole, not the parts. So to speak.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, the mechanisms driving perpetuation, are the intellect I am referring to. So that the parts serve the whole. I mean, who sees the light, if all there is, is light?

So take mutations for example, the consequences of it, don't always produce a benefit for a species to survive, but the fact that mutations occur and the eventual production of a gene that does help, in order to adapt and survive, is the whole, not the parts. So to speak.

The intellect uses random mutation as a vehicle?

 

[Faybull]

The intellect uses random mutation as a vehicle?

Mutation is triggered. The results may vary. But the mechanism itself, is intelligent.

 

[Faybull]

Mutation is triggered. The results may vary. But the mechanism itself, is intelligent.

Aside, the results that vary, aren't "random". They are specific. It just so happens, some don't provide the necessary benefit.

 

[Faybull]

Aside, the results that vary, aren't "random". They are specific. It just so happens, some don't provide the necessary benefit.

You don't know which road to take in order to get home. You try them all? Or do you just try them until you find one that gets you there?

 

[Faybull]

Kind of like, say, the automobile...it doesn't exist because we created it. It exists because the form exists to be able to create it.


If that didn't make any sense...whew!

 

[psychoslice]

I didn't vote, it seems to be a manipulated question.

 

[Faybull]

Wrong.

If I think that a painting is beautiful then it is a subjective opinion. Now on what grounds do I base that opinion? It has good color contrast, correct proportion and is clear. All three of those things are objective facts about the painting in which I base my opinion. However it is possible that I do not like the painting. Why? It has all of these objectively true things about it? The answer is because opinion is based off of facts or beliefs but we choose which facts and beliefs are important to us. Perhaps someone didn't like the painting because it was proportional. Perhaps they felt that the art would have been better if it was exaggerated for emphasis? Or perhaps there was nothing "wrong" but it was simply not up to par with their expectations?

The fact that our emotions come from chemistry in the brain is a fact. But that does not make our feelings and opinions "fact".

I got to ask...
Why is it that the chemical change produces the emotion? And not the emotion that produces the chemical change?

Adrenaline production for example is the effect of what? Emotion?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You don't know which road to take in order to get home. You try them all? Or do you just try them until you find one that gets you there?

If it was a journey I was going to repeat (such as a new workplace) I would try many routes, and take the fastest based on the 'testing'. Having said that, I tend to rely on sat-nav to do the grunt work for me these days.

The main issue I'd see with your analogy is that roads are all designed to lead somewhere, they just may not be where I need to go on a particular day. That is quite different from mutations, which can range from beneficial, through neutral to harmful. And some may be either beneficial or harmful, dependent on circumstance (eg. sickle-cell as it pertains to malaria). Not all mutations (or even most) have any positive or negative impact at all. They are, from a design point of view, pointless.

 

[Faybull]

If it was a journey I was going to repeat (such as a new workplace) I would try many routes, and take the fastest based on the 'testing'. Having said that, I tend to rely on sat-nav to do the grunt work for me these days.

The main issue I'd see with your analogy is that roads are all designed to lead somewhere, they just may not be where I need to go on a particular day. That is quite different from mutations, which can range from beneficial, through neutral to harmful. And some may be either beneficial or harmful, dependent on circumstance (eg. sickle-cell as it pertains to malaria). Not all mutations (or even most) have any positive or negative impact at all. They are, from a design point of view, pointless.

But the mechanism of the mutation itself, is for that destination. Mutation is the road, the routes one may take are the variance.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But the mechanism of the mutation itself, is for that destination. Mutation is the road, the routes one may take are the variance.

Road to where? An assumption of design, and an analogy of a road network both strongly suggest a destination, or at least a progressive journey. But most mutations are pointless, and do nothing to further any 'journey'. Nor are they particularly suggestive of a clear direction.

 

[LuisDantas]

I didn't vote, it seems to be a manipulated question.

You think?

 

[Sapiens]

Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

Of course not, creationism is not science so how could it be used as the foundation of science?

 

[Faybull]

Road to where? An assumption of design, and an analogy of a road network both strongly suggest a destination, or at least a progressive journey. But most mutations are pointless, and do nothing to further any 'journey'. Nor are they particularly suggestive of a clear direction.

Thus, not all roads will get you to your destination.

 

[Faybull]

Thus, not all roads will get you to your destination.

So the road is design. and being that it promotes the survival, it is intelligent. If it has the understanding that its purpose is to promote survival or promote the adaptation which encourages the survival. This understanding only has to be logical in that regard.