Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Jumi]

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

Your original arguments about evolutionists ruining the understanding of gravity weren't that much different from your joke. Still not sure if you are just trolling with all of this or are you just confused?

 

[averageJOE]

I don't understand Syamsu's agrgument. Someone help me out. From what I gather is that he is saying creationism should be taught as a foundation of science because...opinions are more important than facts(?).

 

[gnostic]

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.

What is a bl@@dy joke is that you have moved the damn goalposts so many times in this topic, that I am beginning to suspect either you are simply ignorant or trolling.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

Your supposed lack of understanding is a bogus appeasement for religion, that you would leave any mystery. Birds fly north and south, seems perfectly understandable to me. That you put love together with an ordinary thing like migration patterns, is to say love is just another thing among many things which science will explain, and is not a thing in a different category to which science has no access. Science has no access to what is good, evil, loving, hateful, God, the soul, and all matters of opinion.

To reach the conclusion love is real by choosing it is real, that is genuine subjectivity. Expressing emotions, with free will, thus choosing in reaching the conclusion. And referring to love as choosing, the motivation of a decision, that is authentic subjectivity.

Nobody can raise a family on the swollop that you and any evolutionist leaves for the community as "subjectivity".

 

[Sapiens]

Your supposed lack of understanding is a bogus appeasement for religion, that you would leave any mystery. Birds fly north and south, seems perfectly understandable to me. That you put love together with an ordinary thing like migration patterns, is to say love is just another thing among many things which science will explain, and is not a thing in a different category to which science has no access. Science has no access to what is good, evil, loving, hateful, God, the soul, and all matters of opinion.

Unsupported claim. Read Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape for a full refutation.

To reach the conclusion love is real by choosing it is real, that is genuine subjectivity. Expressing emotions, with free will, thus choosing in reaching the conclusion. And referring to love as choosing, the motivation of a decision, that is authentic subjectivity.

Unsupported claim.

Nobody can raise a family on the swollop that you and any evolutionist leaves for the community as "subjectivity".

Demonstrable clap-trap.

Note: "swollop" does not appear in the OED, I'm assuming, in part from context, that you meant "codswollop."

Note: It is Darwinian Evolution that exactly selects, for exactly how, any good parent would raise a successful family in order to maximize their families success and thus the fitness of their own genes.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't understand Syamsu's agrgument. Someone help me out. From what I gather is that he is saying creationism should be taught as a foundation of science because...opinions are more important than facts(?).

Your mind is obviously a mess. Because I stated quite clear in post 1 that creationism validates both fact and opinion, and explained how to obtain a fact, and how to form an opinion.

There is no darwinian struggle between fact and opinion, they are complementary. If I put the cup on the leftside of the table, then the cup is in fact on the left. If I put it on the right side, then the cup is in fact on the right. I choose, and the result of my decision is a fact which can be recorded. And the fact that the cup is on the right of the table, these words, are basically a copy from the actual physical cup and table in the world, to a world of words. The word table is a representation of the actual table, it is a copy. And then ofcourse with mathematics it is possible in principle to make completely exhaustive copies / models of the world, to the world of mathematics, 1 to 1.

That is how facts work, they apply to what is chosen. And then obviously opinion applies to what chooses, opinion applies to what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does. Who am I as being the owner of my decisions, my soul, that is a matter of opinion, even if I have a soul or not is categorically a matter of opinion. An opinion is arrived at by choosing about what it is that chooses. I place the cup left instead of right, it is my decision. Now then to make an opinion on what the motivation of this decision is, what it is that makes this decision turn out the way it does, I require at least 2 alternatives to choose from. For example, love and hate. I choose hate, then my opinion is that hate is what made the decision turn out left instead of right. And that is the basic logic of how all subjectivity works.

That is why creationism is important, and why religion has always opposed evolution theory, because the theory destroys opinion. That is seen with the two world wars, both of which were highly charged with social darwinian ideas in which opinion about what is good was largely replaced with pseudoscientific facts about what is good.

 

[McBell]

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.

*climbs up onto pontoon boat*

The bovine feces is getting mighty deep

 

[McBell]

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

Mohammad Nur Syamsu should write for the Onion.
Or the National Inquirer...
Or any of the other publications that just make **** up as they go along.

 

[McBell]

Your mind is obviously a mess. Because I stated quite clear in post 1 that creationism validates both fact and opinion, and explained how to obtain a fact, and how to form an opinion.

yes, you have made all manner of bold empty unsubstantiated claims.
Unfortunately, you have not substantiated them.

Care to do so?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Your supposed lack of understanding is a bogus appeasement for religion, that you would leave any mystery.

Yeah, that's me...appeaser of religions. I'm well known for it. Err...just in case there is any doubt, that's sarcasm.

1) I have no interest in appeasing religion
2) I reject the claim that I was demonstrating a 'supposed lack of understanding'. It both makes me sound like I'm obfuscating my views, which I am NOT, and that I was lacking understanding, which I wasn't. Pretty much just all around bunkum.

Birds fly north and south, seems perfectly understandable to me. That you put love together with an ordinary thing like migration patterns, is to say love is just another thing among many things which science will explain, and is not a thing in a different category to which science has no access. Science has no access to what is good, evil, loving, hateful, God, the soul, and all matters of opinion.

So...I made a point in my last post that I was not a reductionist. I am a methodological naturalist. Have you bothered to look at what this means? Your post here indicates complete ignorance of the philosophical position I take.

Further, I am not comparing love and migration in the sense you are suggesting. I was merely stating that there are measureable aspects of migration (ie. north and south), and unknown aspects, such as the mechanism used for navigation. You then jump to the conclusion that I am reducing migration to a collection of facts, known and unknown. I cannot be clearer...I am not a reductionist. If you continue to insist I am, I can only assume trolling.

To reach the conclusion love is real by choosing it is real, that is genuine subjectivity. Expressing emotions, with free will, thus choosing in reaching the conclusion. And referring to love as choosing, the motivation of a decision, that is authentic subjectivity.

Thank you for the lecture on love. I will now be able to explain to my wife and daughters that I love them without referring to brain impulses and electrical stimuli.
Phhht.

Nobody can raise a family on the swollop that you and any evolutionist leaves for the community as "subjectivity".

Who the heck would raise a family based on Darwinian or evolutionary principles? This is simply a strawman, and bears no resemblance to reality. I don't raise my family based on Darwinism, evolution, or some weird version of material reductionism that you insist on assigning to anyone who isn't a Creationist. You premise here is not even wrong.

Sidenote, have you explained to the Pagans that they are reductionists yet? I'm assuming you're a little fussy on the particular 'Creation' you subscribe to as subjective truth that is objectively factual.

 

[averageJOE]

Your mind is obviously a mess. Because I stated quite clear in post 1 that creationism validates both fact and opinion, and explained how to obtain a fact, and how to form an opinion.

There is no darwinian struggle between fact and opinion, they are complementary. If I put the cup on the leftside of the table, then the cup is in fact on the left. If I put it on the right side, then the cup is in fact on the right. I choose, and the result of my decision is a fact which can be recorded. And the fact that the cup is on the right of the table, these words, are basically a copy from the actual physical cup and table in the world, to a world of words. The word table is a representation of the actual table, it is a copy. And then ofcourse with mathematics it is possible in principle to make completely exhaustive copies / models of the world, to the world of mathematics, 1 to 1.

That is how facts work, they apply to what is chosen. And then obviously opinion applies to what chooses, opinion applies to what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does. Who am I as being the owner of my decisions, my soul, that is a matter of opinion, even if I have a soul or not is categorically a matter of opinion. An opinion is arrived at by choosing about what it is that chooses. I place the cup left instead of right, it is my decision. Now then to make an opinion on what the motivation of this decision is, what it is that makes this decision turn out the way it does, I require at least 2 alternatives to choose from. For example, love and hate. I choose hate, then my opinion is that hate is what made the decision turn out left instead of right. And that is the basic logic of how all subjectivity works.

That is why creationism is important, and why religion has always opposed evolution theory, because the theory destroys opinion. That is seen with the two world wars, both of which were highly charged with social darwinian ideas in which opinion about what is good was largely replaced with pseudoscientific facts about what is good.

And all this has what to do with science???

All you have said here is "I have decided that creationism is important and that is my opinion."

 

[Sapiens]

Your mind is obviously a mess. Because I stated quite clear in post 1 that creationism validates both fact and opinion, and explained how to obtain a fact, and how to form an opinion.

That is false, creationism in all it's disguises except "guided evolution" has been falsified in one way or another.

There is no darwinian struggle between fact and opinion, they are complementary. If I put the cup on the leftside of the table, then the cup is in fact on the left. If I put it on the right side, then the cup is in fact on the right. I choose, and the result of my decision is a fact which can be recorded. And the fact that the cup is on the right of the table, these words, are basically a copy from the actual physical cup and table in the world, to a world of words. The word table is a representation of the actual table, it is a copy. And then ofcourse with mathematics it is possible in principle to make completely exhaustive copies / models of the world, to the world of mathematics, 1 to 1.

That is how facts work, they apply to what is chosen. And then obviously opinion applies to what chooses, opinion applies to what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does. Who am I as being the owner of my decisions, my soul, that is a matter of opinion, even if I have a soul or not is categorically a matter of opinion. An opinion is arrived at by choosing about what it is that chooses. I place the cup left instead of right, it is my decision. Now then to make an opinion on what the motivation of this decision is, what it is that makes this decision turn out the way it does, I require at least 2 alternatives to choose from.

For example, love and hate. I choose hate, then my opinion is that hate is what made the decision turn out left instead of right. And that is the basic logic of how all subjectivity works.

You're doing reasonably well up to here but then you make a logical disjoint and go off into the ozone.

That is why creationism is important, and why religion has always opposed evolution theory, because the theory destroys opinion.

You elucidate no connection between creationism and anything else, it just sudden appears in your post. You are incorrect in your statement that, "religion has always opposed evolution theory." You make not case for your claim: "the theory (I assume TOE) destroys opinion." The only thing that destroys opinion is being on the wrong side of what is logical and correct.

That is seen with the two world wars, both of which were highly charged with social darwinian ideas in which opinion about what is good was largely replaced with pseudoscientific facts about what is good.

Social Darwinism has nothing what-so-ever to do with Darwinian Evolution.

 

[sun rise]

Your mind is obviously a mess.

Insulting people is not a help.

...
That is why creationism is important, and why religion has always opposed evolution theory, because the theory destroys opinion. That is seen with the two world wars, both of which were highly charged with social darwinian ideas in which opinion about what is good was largely replaced with pseudoscientific facts about what is good.

I provided a reference to the Quran in support of evolution. And in fact ALL religious texts can be read as supporting evolution. Of course some disagree but still this it complete proof that your assertion that religion has ALWAYS opposed evolution is false.

Hinduism: Fortunately for Hindus, none of the basic teachings of the ancient rishis are in conflict with science. Therefore, science and Hinduism will exist side-by-side without conflict for centuries to come.

Judaism: Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko (a 12th-century student of Maimonides, agreed with this view.

Buddhism: “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

Christianity: The priest was the Rev. Charles Kingsley and on November 18th, 1859, six days before the publication of the Origin, he was thanking Darwin for his kind gift of an advance copy, writing that ‘All I have seen of it awes me’, commenting that it is ‘just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that He created primal forms capable of self-development...as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas [gaps] which He Himself had made’.

Since 1859 most Christians have been equally happy to incorporate evolution within their biblical understanding of creation. Yes there was some opposition at the beginning, as there is for any radically new theory, but the most influential church leaders soon realized that Kingsley was right. The idea that evolution was greeted with general horror by the Church is a myth.

 

[Faybull]

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

Most of the mutations don't work either, but the fact that it will target genes in order to survive, as is the design, is intelligence.
Being that it is logical. So if the design or plan of mutation is logical?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Most of the mutations don't work either, but the fact that it will target genes in order to survive, as is the design, is intelligence.
Being that it is logical. So if the design or plan of mutation is logical?

We might have to just agree to disagree on this.
I don't see any form of intelligent design in mutation when most mutations have no impact, and most mutations don't survive, unless you think God created evolution, and then let's it run it's course without direct intervention.

If you do think that, then we'd still disagree, but I think then your point would make sense to me.

 

[Faybull]

We might have to just agree to disagree on this.
I don't see any form of intelligent design in mutation when most mutations have no impact, and most mutations don't survive, unless you think God created evolution, and then let's it run it's course without direct intervention.

If you do think that, then we'd still disagree, but I think then your point would make sense to me.

Ya, it doesn't make any sense to me. All though, it has been said that it is hard for one to see intelligence in design when they lack the intelligence to see it. I don't remember who said it, but he must of been intelligent.

 

[Bunyip]

Ya, it doesn't make any sense to me. All though, it has been said that it is hard for one to see intelligence in design when they lack the intelligence to see it. I don't remember who said it, but he must of been intelligent.

But intelligent design is redundant, we know that intelligence is not needed to drive evolution. So the reason why we see no intelligence in design is simply because it is a redundant. Whether or not an organism is intelligently designed is also not detectable by any method or mechanism (in fact ID proponents have yet to even propose a test for design) and so you are insulting the intelligence of any who can not see something that can not be seen anyway.

 

[sun rise]

We might have to just agree to disagree on this.
I don't see any form of intelligent design in mutation when most mutations have no impact, and most mutations don't survive, unless you think God created evolution, and then let's it run it's course without direct intervention.

If you do think that, then we'd still disagree, but I think then your point would make sense to me.

A chef can put ingredients in a pot, let it cook for a while and then taste it and add things to make it tastier. What's to stop God from doing the same thing? (note: theology not science) Maybe God enjoys watching life unfold just like a gardener watches flowers grow and bloom.

Or, as the button says: God wrote the program, evolution is the output, meteor strikes are the reset button.

 

[McBell]

What does all the failed designs say about an all knowing designer?

 

[Bunyip]

A chef can put ingredients in a pot, let it cook for a while and then taste it and add things to make it tastier. What's to stop God from doing the same thing? (note: theology not science) Maybe God enjoys watching life unfold just like a gardener watches flowers grow and bloom.

Or, as the button says: God wrote the program, evolution is the output, meteor strikes are the reset button.

Sure, if god exists there is nothing to stop him doing stuff. The point here is that he doesn't need to interfere with evolution. He is redundant, evolution needs no intelligent intervention.