Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[sun rise]

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

It's perfectly possible to find support in the Quran for evolution and in fact it's been done. Just one example from that reference which is quite comprehensive.

32.7. (Allah is He) who has made everything He created better, and He began the creation of the human (being) out of clay.

In this verse, we are told that Allah (Praise to Him) began the creation of human beings out of clay, but that was the beginning, then He improved His creation making it better.

The most relevant word in this verse is "began" (bada-a), which tells us clearly that creation happened in a process that had a beginning, not just at once. The same meaning is found in Verse 15, Chapter 50.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

More than that, most of the 'roads' in this analogy don't lead to any destination at all. How does that suggest intelligent design?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

As for my opinions, I choose to have them grounded in facts.

Opinions are grounded on emotion, you have no emotions? You are simply applying the rules for facts to opinions. It is facts that must be based on evidence forcing to a conclusion, not opinions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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

That does actually, as by logic which I demonstrated, make your opinions into facts, that is why it is simply false.

What you write is a jumbled mess. You cannot define opinion with even more opinion, that is circular logic. You say the beauty is based on facts, and then the facts are based on "importance". And what's importance based on then huh? Even more facts?

You have just confused the issue by adding 1 layer of complexity, deferred choosing beauty, to choosing importance. Still the exactsame logic applies, what it is that chooses the "importance" is a matter of opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Personally, I'm a big fan of opinion.

It is not convincing. You do your utmost to run opinion in the ground and replace it with fact. That is weird, but it is what you do.

You say the differential reproductive "success" is not moral, but then you do not acknowledge a distinct category to which morality applies, so it ends up as defacto morality anyway.

One might make a category of "humanity" to put morality in. But that will not solve the problem, because as you can see, humanity, emotions, is said to be "chemistry", and chemistry is a matter of fact.

You cannot distinghuish the "succes" as not moral, when you don't actually acknowledge any separate category which validates opinion.

Only creationists can distinghuish fact from opinion, only creationist philosophy has a logic assigned to subjectivity which works to make it distinct from facts.

By you saying creationism is wrong, it is then proven that you take moral meaning from natural selection theory.

 

[Bunyip]

It is not convincing. You do your utmost to run opinion in the ground and replace it with fact. That is weird, but it is what you do.

You say the differential reproductive "success" is not moral, but then you do not acknowledge a distinct category to which morality applies, so it ends up as defacto morality anyway.

One might make a category of "humanity" to put morality in. But that will not solve the problem, because as you can see, humanity, emotions, is said to be "chemistry", and chemistry is a matter of fact.

You cannot distinghuish the "succes" as not moral, when you don't actually acknowledge any separate category which validates opinion.

Only creationists can distinghuish fact from opinion, only creationist philosophy has a logic assigned to subjectivity which works to make it distinct from facts.

By you saying creationism is wrong, it is then proven that you take moral meaning from natural selection theory.

Being distinct from facts is not a good thing I'm sorry to say.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is not convincing. You do your utmost to run opinion in the ground and replace it with fact. That is weird, but it is what you do.

Awww...shucks. You know me so well! Oh no hang on, you don't. I guess you're running with stereotypes.

You say the differential reproductive "success" is not moral, but then you do not acknowledge a distinct category to which morality applies, so it ends up as defacto morality anyway.

Reproductive success is not defacto morality to my mind. Please stop attributing your preconceptions to me.

One might make a category of "humanity" to put morality in. But that will not solve the problem, because as you can see, humanity, emotions, is said to be "chemistry", and chemistry is a matter of fact.

I feel no need to take ownership of your misconceptions. If you want to conflate emotion and fact, be my guest.

You cannot distinghuish the "succes" as not moral, when you don't actually acknowledge any separate category which validates opinion.

Reproductive success has nothing to do with morality. It's merely an outcome measurement. Just because one creature successfully procreates and another doesn't isn't something that reflects any sort of material superiority to my mind. And I'm happy for people to have opinions. You seem determined to make all atheists reductive materialists, which isn't accurate. Then again you were conflating atheists and secularists the other day, so whatever.

Only creationists can distinghuish fact from opinion, only creationist philosophy has a logic assigned to subjectivity which works to make it distinct from facts.

Glad I'm apparently the one who thinks there are only facts, and no such thing as opinions.

By you saying creationism is wrong, it is then proven that you take moral meaning from natural selection theory.

Nope, that's not true. It just proves that I think creationism is wrong. Although I'm sure you see all naturalists as being the same, and all non-creationists as being naturalists.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Just because one creature successfully procreates and another doesn't isn't something that reflects any sort of material superiority to my mind.

And what if a creature just procreates instead of succesfully procreating? To any normal human being success implies a moral imperative. The language of natural selection theory is metaphorical.

And you just dismissed the only way to distinguish fact from opinion, which is creationism. The only way to distinghuish the metaphore of natural selection from the underlaying facts.

Then you continue with suggestive ideas about that the totality of reality is all what is known by science. There may be more, we don't know. You don't acknowledge morality as real, but not part of science. You can't because, you reject creationism.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

50% of what we were taught in school as facts, will be shown to have been incorrect later in life.
50%of the facts we think are true are wrong. This is as true in science as in everthing else.

Religion can not deal in facts, but must equally be open to change. Faith and opinion are closely bound together, but are open to reassessment and even reversal. Loss of faith is as common as finding faith.
Creationism is neithr good religion nor good science, as it has no means of testing its assumptions, nor is it supported by the revelation of the prophets.

It is the worst of all worlds.
It is difficult to determine if it is more a bastardization of scienc or of religion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The religious credibility of evolutionists is not there, it is a joke to me, you cannot be serious.

Anybody who let's go of the basic logic of creationism, 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 it does, does not have any credible religion, and has lost their handle on all subjectivity.

That is the way subjectivity works, it does not work any other way. The rest is wrong. Materialism, atheism, philosophical naturalism, communism, nazism, monism, physicalism etc. they all don't provide a handle on subjectivity.

 

[YmirGF]

It's perfectly possible to find support in the Quran for evolution and in fact it's been done. Just one example from that reference which is quite comprehensive.

Nothing really surprises me about what Muslims keep reading into their Qur'an. It's all terribly amusing and quite desperate.

 

[YmirGF]

The religious credibility of evolutionists is not there, it is a joke to me, you cannot be serious.

Anybody who let's go of the basic logic of creationism, 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 it does, does not have any credible religion, and has lost their handle on all subjectivity.

That is the way subjectivity works, it does not work any other way. The rest is wrong. Materialism, atheism, philosophical naturalism, communism, nazism, monism, physicalism etc. they all don't provide a handle on subjectivity.

I must admit that even this grizzled keyboard warrior has never encountered such smugness from a creationist before. You make it sound like creationism is the only real perspective to take. That is so amusing.

 

[McBell]

The religious credibility of evolutionists is not there, it is a joke to me, you cannot be serious.

Coming from you I take this as the highest form of compliment.

Anybody who let's go of the basic logic of creationism, 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 it does, does not have any credible religion, and has lost their handle on all subjectivity.

Word salad.
You try to hard to make your bull **** sound intelligent and meaningful.

That is the way subjectivity works, it does not work any other way.

Really?
Cause you sure haven't demonstrated any such thing.

The rest is wrong. Materialism, atheism, philosophical naturalism, communism, nazism, monism, physicalism etc. they all don't provide a handle on subjectivity.

Perhaps you should try harder to get a grasp on reality?
Just a thought.


To be completely honest with you, this whole thread seems to be nothing more than you attempting to elevate your opinions to the status of fact.
Unfortunately, you have failed.
Better to pick yourself up, dust yourself, and try again in another thread.

Might I suggest you try harder to keep your ego in check in the next thread?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

In the end they all need subjective acknowledgement of who they are as being the owner of their decisions. In the end they all need creationist philosophy to facillitate subjectivity. No matter what sophisticated evolutionist nonsense they come up with, the truth is plain and simple.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And what if a creature just procreates instead of succesfully procreating? To any normal human being success implies a moral imperative. The language of natural selection theory is metaphorical.

Seriously, I've seen a lot of people just make crap up, but few have so consistently claimed that their made up crap is 'normal', 'common' or 'only way' as often as you.
To be clear...in terms of scientific language, successful procreation indicates creation of offspring. It is not a moral judgement.

And you just dismissed the only way to distinguish fact from opinion, which is creationism. The only way to distinghuish the metaphore of natural selection from the underlaying facts.

Says you. Don't you find it ironic that you are arguing that your way is the only way that allows for opinion and fact as distinct, but you present all your opinions AS FACTS?
It's a mind-boggler.

Then you continue with suggestive ideas about that the totality of reality is all what is known by science.

Okay, you're clearly posting answers to some made-up discourse in your head. I would ask that you please show where I said anything like this immediately, or retract this nonsence. Making things up and attributing them to me is deceitful.

There may be more, we don't know. You don't acknowledge morality as real, but not part of science. You can't because, you reject creationism.

Just complete rubbish. You're literally just making things up.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Seriously, I've seen a lot of people just make crap up, but few have so consistently claimed that their made up crap is 'normal', 'common' or 'only way' as often as you.
To be clear...in terms of scientific language, successful procreation indicates creation of offspring. It is not a moral judgement.

I can know that, because I am a creationist. But you are an evolutionist and you put love together with animal migration patterns as something that science supposedly has a handle on.

I put love in the category of what chooses, the creator category, problem solved, it's a matter of opinion. Now I can distinghuish the metaphore of like (as like is derived from love) to reproduce, with actual like to reproduce.

You put love in the scientific, partially measured whatever category. Which means, you have no way out, you take prescriptive meaning from "differential reproductive success"

Okay, you're clearly posting answers to some made-up discourse in your head. I would ask that you please show where I said anything like this immediately, or retract this nonsence. Making things up and attributing them to me is deceitful.

Here you just put "love" into the same category as animal migration patterns.

Lewisnotmiller:
"Animals migrate naturally. We can track their movements. We can measure this migration, in one sense, in whatever species we invest the time into. We don't understand the mechanisms of it.
So, perhaps we'll get to a point of 'measuring' love, by seeing the chemical and brain impacts. Perhaps we can synthesise this as well. It doesn't mean we understand it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I can know that, because I am a creationist. But you are an evolutionist and you put love together with animal migration patterns as something that science supposedly has a handle on.

No I didn't. In fact, I directly said the opposite.

I put love in the category of what chooses, the creator category, problem solved, it's a matter of opinion. Now I can distinghuish the metaphore of like (as like is derived from love) to reproduce, with actual like to reproduce.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, sorry.

You put love in the scientific, partially measured whatever category. Which means, you have no way out, you take prescriptive meaning from "differential reproductive success"

Prescriptive meaning? What are you talking about?
Love and reproductive success have nothing in common. You're just creating more strawmen. I wonder if you ever read what people post, or ever believe anything anyone ever says.

Here you just put "love" into the same category as animal migration patterns.

Lewisnotmiller:
"Animals migrate naturally. We can track their movements. We can measure this migration, in one sense, in whatever species we invest the time into. We don't understand the mechanisms of it.
So, perhaps we'll get to a point of 'measuring' love, by seeing the chemical and brain impacts. Perhaps we can synthesise this as well. It doesn't mean we understand it.

I suspect any subtleties of language are lost on you, so let me try and paint what I was saying in black and white.
Science is a tool of measurement. In some sense, we can measure animal migration patterns via science. Awesome. But we don't understand them.
Perhaps we'll be able to 'measure' (please note single quotes, also known as scare quotes...feel free to Google this) love in some way. We can see brain activities. But that DOESN'T MEAN WE'LL UNDERSTAND IT. I am actually telling you that there is more to love than we can understand and measure, and you offer this as evidence that I am a reductionist.

For what it's worth, and not that I expect you to believe I know the first thing about myself, but I am NOT a reductionist. If pushed, I'd describe myself as methodological naturalist. Feel free to google that one too, but suffice to say it's not reductionism.

Sheesh.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This thread is beginning to sound like something from the The Onion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This thread is beginning to sound like something from the The Onion.

Yeah...I'm still trying to work out how serious some of this is, to be honest.

 

[sun rise]

The religious credibility of evolutionists is not there, it is a joke to me, you cannot be serious.

Anybody who let's go of the basic logic of creationism, 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 it does, does not have any credible religion, and has lost their handle on all subjectivity.

That is the way subjectivity works, it does not work any other way. The rest is wrong. Materialism, atheism, philosophical naturalism, communism, nazism, monism, physicalism etc. they all don't provide a handle on subjectivity.

The [scientific] credibility of [religionists] is not there, it is a joke to me, you cannot be serious.

My subjective judgement which is as valid as anyone else's subjective judgement is that you are utterly wrong and that the Quran proves your errors.