Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Rick O'Shez]

Creationism is the single big idea in science that deals with this... decisive reality.

Creationism isn't in science, it's a religious belief based on an ancient text.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If you accept freedom is a reality, then obviously creationism is the way to go. I don't think it is acceptable to kind of ignore freedom, deny it, or leave it as something which maybe later we will find out about.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Interested if you have a response for #110

@Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Still interested if you have a response for #110.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

@Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Still interested if you have a response for #110.

I don't have a direct response, I would just repeat what I already said.

Isn't it simply the truth that as in the poll question at the start, creationism provides for clear acceptance of both fact and opinion, and that otherwise everybody has their own "opinion" about what facts and opinions are?

That you accept methodological naturalism, well where does that leave opinion and fact? Obvious to me your insistence on not being a reductionist is to provide room for opinion. But really only the fact part is accommodated, and all opinion get's is this non-reductionism, which means whatever. You couldn't make it clear to me. You do not have transparent procedures for arriving at opinion and fact, like there is in creationism.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't have a direct response, I would just repeat what I already said.

Isn't it simply the truth that as in the poll question at the start, creationism provides for clear acceptance of both fact and opinion, and that otherwise everybody has their own "opinion" about what facts and opinions are?

That you accept methodological naturalism, well where does that leave opinion and fact? Obvious to me your insistence on not being a reductionist is to provide room for opinion. But really only the fact part is accommodated, and all opinion get's is this non-reductionism, which means whatever. You couldn't make it clear to me. You do not have transparent procedures for arriving at opinion and fact, like there is in creationism.

But let us not forget that creationism is obviously and clearly falsifiable and relies on serial denialism to continue making it's case, while there are dozens of separate and distinct, mutually supporting lines of evidence each of which shreds the basic concepts of creationism. But, like a punch drunk boxer, the creationists keep stumbling back for more punishment, only to get smacked down again and again and again. Keep repeating it to yourself ... "it's only a flesh wound."

 

[Nietzsche]

If you accept freedom is a reality, then obviously creationism is the way to go. I don't think it is acceptable to kind of ignore freedom, deny it, or leave it as something which maybe later we will find out about.

You are obviously free to be wrong and willfully ignorant.

You are not free to make children that way.

 

[psychoslice]

You are obviously free to be wrong and willfully ignorant.

You are not free to make children that way.

Well said.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't have a direct response, I would just repeat what I already said.

Okay. I was trying to clarify some of your misconceptions about my meaning and my philosophical position. I thought it might have led to some movement in the dualistic position you hold, but that's okay.

Isn't it simply the truth that as in the poll question at the start, creationism provides for clear acceptance of both fact and opinion, and that otherwise everybody has their own "opinion" about what facts and opinions are?

Everyone has their own opinion, anyway. For example, what is creationism?

That you accept methodological naturalism, well where does that leave opinion and fact? Obvious to me your insistence on not being a reductionist is to provide room for opinion.

Almost true. It's more to allow room for my own ignorance. The concept of opinion (ironically) wasn't a consideration in forming my opinion in this case.

But really only the fact part is accommodated, and all opinion get's is this non-reductionism, which means whatever. You couldn't make it clear to me. You do not have transparent procedures for arriving at opinion and fact, like there is in creationism.

No-one has transparent procedures for arriving at opinion and fact, unless they simplify 'fact' to a point you do not.
Explain what a fact is? Explain what an opinion is?

You seem set on the world having two views. Reductionism being some sort of hardcore materialism that reduces all things to a sub-atomic level and therefore negates opinion, or creationism, which introduces free will, and thereby allows for separate meaning between fact and opinion.

There are far more ways of looking at the world than these two. There isn't even a single way of understanding Creationism, which is the initial concept involved in your explanation.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There are far more ways of looking at the world than these two.

Like I said, I don't think it is a good idea to kind of ignore freedom and opinion. I don't accept such views.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You are not free to make children that way.

I think in an ideal world there would be no religious education at all in schools. In the UK there are quite of lot of faith schools, and recently major concerns have been expressed about some Islamic schools in terms of what they are teaching.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Like I said, I don't think it is a good idea to kind of ignore freedom and opinion. I don't accept such views.

Bravo for you. Keep hammering that strawman.

 

[Nietzsche]

Like I said, I don't think it is a good idea to kind of ignore freedom and opinion. I don't accept such views.

When your opinion is in direct conflict with fact, we can and should ignore it. Just like we rightfully ignore astrology, flat-earth, alchemy and the 'stork theory' of childbirth.

Evolution requires no belief. We have a nigh 100% complete fossil record of the transition of sirenians(Manatees) and cetaceans(Whales, dolphins). Millions of years of small, sometimes almost unnoticeable changes that eventually add up to what you see today.

Let me ask you this. Why would Allah create something like a manatee? It has elbows, and the 'flipper' is just a foot where the flesh has fused together. It still has toenails. That is not the work of a designer. It's a shoddy product, broken, if you look at it from the perspective it was made that way to begin with. It is much more logical to think that instead, Allah crafted the process of evolution. Slow change over time to lead to what we have in the present.

Evolution does not, in any way, negate the idea of a deity. That's not what it's about. You can have both.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why would Allah create something like a manatee? It has elbows, and the 'flipper' is just a foot where the flesh has fused together. It still has toenails. That is not the work of a designer. It's a shoddy product,

Absolutely. There are lots of examples like this which show that adaptation is a messy, trial and error process. Life would look very different if you planned it from scratch,

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Bravo for you. Keep hammering that strawman.

It would be enormously great if evolutionists accepted freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and also accepted that it is categorically a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

But it simply isn't happening, as you can see in this thread, and if you read evolution science, freedom is largely ignored and doubted, and there is no room provided for opinion.

 

[Nietzsche]

It would be enormously great if evolutionists accepted freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and also accepted that it is categorically a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

But it simply isn't happening, as you can see in this thread, and if you read evolution science, freedom is largely ignored and doubted, and there is no room provided for opinion.

For the same reason we don't pay attention to people who believe storks are where babies come from.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It would be enormously great if evolutionists accepted freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and also accepted that it is categorically a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

But it simply isn't happening, as you can see in this thread, and if you read evolution science, freedom is largely ignored and doubted, and there is no room provided for opinion.

I always keep my wishes to simple things. Like hoping people will answer direct questions.
But it simply isn't happening, as you can see in this thread.

Can you please explain creation.
Can you please explain what you mean by freedom and opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I always keep my wishes to simple things. Like hoping people will answer direct questions.
But it simply isn't happening, as you can see in this thread.

Can you please explain creation.
Can you please explain what you mean by freedom and opinion.

Try post number 1 in this thread, where it says opinion = ,and fact = ..............

 

[Nietzsche]

Try post number 1 in this thread, where it says opinion = ,and fact = ..............

Would you mind replying to what I brought up? Why can't Allah and evolution be reconciled?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Try post number 1 in this thread, where it says opinion = ,and fact = ..............

You mean this one?

Only creationism validates both fact and opinion, that is why it should be the foundation of science. Other philosophies only validate fact, like materialism, or only validate opinion, like postmodernism.

Creator:
subjectivity
opinion = the result of choosing about what it is that chooses
emotions
soul
spirit
morality
religion
spirituality

Creation:
objectivity
fact = copying / modelling something from creation
body
brain
fantasy
mathematics

This doesn't explain what you mean by creation. It merely assumes that everyone understands what you mean by creation, but leaves the concept nebulous.
It's explanation of opinion is extremely confusing (the result of choosing about what it is that chooses).
There is no mention of freedom.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Would you mind replying to what I brought up? Why can't Allah and evolution be reconciled?

It can be, logically. Most any offspring is a modified descendent of it's parents. I can see it happening.

However, this does not describe origins, because origins can only be described by explaining in terms of the decisions by which it came to be.