A challenge for creationists.

[ecoli]

You can't prove it true. I don't want it taught in science class because it's not science.

 

Good point. Creationism should not be taught in place of evolution because it is not, as you say, science.

[-Demosthenes-]

Well I guess we can go one using our fun little extremely ambiguous words, "Creationism" and "Creationist". It'll make the whole thing alot more interesting to watch.

[atinymonkey]

Creationism and the Evangelical Church represent the fading embers of what was once a religion and is now hopelessly outmoded. Let it thrash itself out, all that can be done at the moment is containment.

 

It's just rather sad that Creationism focuses on an impossible argument against an abstract school of thought rather than facing the reality of it's standing in the Christian faith. Creationism is a embarrassment to most Christians, and in the end people shy away from that kind of Church.

 

If more time was spent with ecclesiastical study's rather than investing time into false arguments, perhaps the Creationist movement would carry more credence.

[Hellbender]

Remember that biblical creationists, or those that reject evolution out of stubborness of faith in favor of the genesis section of their holy book (is this good, Demothenese?) want creationism taught in schools is rarely out of intellectual or practical reasons. They feel evolution will make them satan's children and they want their faith in schools because people tell them they can't have it in schools.

[Gnieus]

They feel evolution will make them satan's children and they want their faith in schools because people tell them they can't have it in schools.

 

In every bavarian class room a cruxifix or cross was hanging on the wall, when I grew up. We got religion or ethics as a choice of subject. We nevertheless got taught evolution. If the crosses were removed now, I don't live there anymore, it would have been cause muslims felt discriminated against. I wouldn't wonder if nevertheless muslims have now the choice between religious classes and ethics too. It's all about choice, really.

 

I can only say news that some American schools forbid evolution being taught at school just adds in Europe to a growing feeling that "Americans are weird". I think the larger thinking part of America should be aware of that and take action.

[Mart]

Good point. Creationism should not be taught in place of evolution because it is not, as you say, science.

Swansont's criterion "You can't prove it right" for whether it's science or not is WRONG. What makes it science is whether an explanation can be proved FALSE.

[Mart]

More to the point, i agree with the fact that creationism is a "valid" theory per se, but it is not a good one.

Creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory if it is NOT falsifiable. If it is not a scientific theory then what sort of theory is it?

[Mart]

Well I guess we can go one using our fun little extremely ambiguous words, "Creationism" and "Creationist". It'll make the whole thing alot more interesting to watch.

The central problem is NOT the words. It's the MEANING of the words. See #156 and #157

[atinymonkey]

Creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory if it is NOT falsifiable. If[/b'] it is not a scientific theory then what sort of theory is it?

 

It's ecumenical. It's not directly comparable.

 

The assertion is similar to Chuang Tzu musings "Am I a man who dreamed I was a butterfly? Or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?" in its ramifications to science. The scientific theory cannot be used to prove or disprove such abstract philosophical theories such as the existence of a creator or the nature of perception.

 

I hope that helps.

[swansont]

Swansont's criterion "You can't prove it right" for whether it's science or not is WRONG.

 

Where did I present that as a criterion?

[swansont]

I think that we all have a different veiw of what the Theory of Creation is. I think that we should set down exactly what we mean when we say' date=' "Theory of Creation" or "Creationalist".

It would be helpfull.[/quote']

 

Literal interpretation of the origin of the universe as described in the Bible. Including, but not limited to, 6-day creation ~6,000 years ago, Adam & Eve, and a great flood that covered the earth completely.

[Hellbender]

I can only say news that some American schools forbid evolution being taught at school just adds in Europe to a growing feeling that "Americans are weird". I think the larger thinking part of America should be aware of that and take action.

 

Its the other way around. here in America all secular, government-funded schools have to teach evolution. In the souther states, there are many crazy religious people who want their biblical creation dogma taught alongside of, or instead of, evolution. The reason is pretty obviously they can't stand the fact that their religion isn't allowed in schools, so they present a part of their religion as science in hopes that it can get into the schools. Yeah, Americans are wierd.

[Mart]

Where did I present that as a criterion?

Post #142

You said "You can't prove it true. I don't want it taught in science class because it's not science"

Are you saying that there is no connection between your two sentences? If there isn't, what reason do you have for bringing in the concept of proof? ^2

[swansont]

Post #142

You said "You can't prove it true. I don't want it taught in science class because it's not science"

Are you saying that there is no connection between your two sentences? If there isn't' date=' what reason do you have for bringing in the concept of [b']proof[/b]? ^2

 

You have to look at the response in context, i.e. the post I quoted. The first sentence was in response to "how do I prove it true?" and the second was in response to "why don't you want it taught in schools?"

[Mart]

You have to look at the response in context, i.e. the post I quoted. The first sentence was in response to "how do I prove it true?" and the second was in response to "why don't you want it taught in schools?"

Would you agree that science

(a) is based on proving assertions to be false?

(b) students would benefit from understanding what makes creationism not-science? (They would not necessarily have to be taught this in a biology class.)

[ydoaPs]

lets try comparing things that CAN be compared. what is a theory for the creation of life that has ANY proof.

[swansont]

Its the other way around. here in America all secular, government-funded schools have to teach evolution. In the souther states, there are many crazy religious people who want their biblical creation dogma taught alongside of, or instead of, evolution. The reason is pretty obviously they can't stand the fact that their religion isn't allowed in schools, so they present a part of their religion as science in hopes that it can get into the schools. Yeah, Americans are wierd.

 

Change that from "have to" to "are supposed to" since a few districts manage to flout the rule until the judicial system gets around to them. And it's not just Southern states - Ohio, Kansas , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have gotten into the act in recent years, IIRC.

 

 

I can agree with weird, but consider that the American system of government was set up by people who fled Europe because they didn't like some aspect of the government system there. Of course we end up acting different. We are astounded by some European behavior, too.

[Sayonara]

lets try comparing things that CAN be compared. what is a theory for the creation of life that has ANY proof.

Best suggestion I've heard today.

[swansont]

Would you agree that science

(a) is based on proving assertions to be false?

(b) students would benefit from understanding what makes creationism not-science? (They would not necessarily have to be taught this in a biology class.)

 

(a) is only part of the story. Science has to be falsifiable. But you don't spend all of you time as a scientist trying to disprove things. Science is based' date=' [i']in part[/i], on trying to falsify assertions.

 

Sure, students would benefit from that. There are a lot of things that are important to know about the structure of science that are not dealt with directly in science class. The definition of theory is one, and some modes of critical thought. Perhaps a in philosphy of science class, or something like that.

[Mart]

(a) is only part of the story. Science has to be falsifiable. But you don't spend all of you time as a scientist trying to disprove things. Science is based' date=' [i']in part[/i], on trying to falsify assertions.

 

Sure, students would benefit from that. There are a lot of things that are important to know about the structure of science that are not dealt with directly in science class. The definition of theory is one, and some modes of critical thought. Perhaps a in philosphy of science class, or something like that.

Good. We are in agreement at last. Progress has been made.

[Mart]

lets try comparing things that CAN be compared. what is a theory for the creation of life that has ANY proof.

Swansont has agreed with me that scientific theories should be falsifiable. Therefore (if you agree) then it's up to creationists to propose an experiment that can test their theories.

[ydoaPs]

when i said creation i didn't neccesarily mean creationist creation. i meant ANY theory of how life got started.

[Mart]

when i said creation i didn't neccesarily mean creationist creation. i meant ANY theory of how life got started.

If it's any scientific theory then it has to be falsifiable. Doesn't matter who thinks it up. But when they do they have to propose an experiment. It's more economical that way.

[Gnieus]

We are astounded by some European behavior, too.

 

Lol bet you do! Anything based on rational wrong doings, like the Evolution thing?

[Newtonian]

Its the other way around. here in America all secular, government-funded schools have to teach evolution. In the souther states, there are many crazy religious people who want their biblical creation dogma taught alongside of, or instead of, evolution. The reason is pretty obviously they can't stand the fact that their religion isn't allowed in schools, so they present a part of their religion as science in hopes that it can get into the schools. Yeah, Americans are wierd.

As an American you dont seem to know your history,or are choosing to ignore it.

All schools taught creation(not specifically 6,000year old earth creationist dogma).

In order to gain a foothold in the school system to teach evolution,it was proposed as a RELIGION.

As to your inference, yes they seem to many crazy people in america,however a sweeping statement infering they are all crazy religious people is a no no.