Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV

[popper]

I take it they never studied genetics

Not sure but as far as I know there is no geneticist that has figured out the origin of man? I applaud and respect their work however. My point with the family-member scientist/engineer post was simply that creationist come in all backgrounds and colors and that stereotyping them as "having it wrong" may be oversimplifying things a bit.

[Zonkerbl]

To the extent that they deny science, I guess.

[Ed Wood]

The level of academic achievement or profession of individuals who believe in some form of creationism isn't at issue. Creationism simply isn't falsifiable, that's the entire basis for its support as a theory, that's there's no real way to discredit it. That's fine but also puts it outside the realm of what should be discussed when considering scientific theories or when teaching them.

[Zonkerbl]

Depends what you're arguing about. Is creationism right or wrong is a different question from whether you should be allowed to teach creationism in schools.

I guess my point is you don't have to be anti-science to be creationist. In which case there's no need to teach a creationist alternative. Teach the science part of it in school and the "what it means" part in church or at home.

[dobrojim]

Depends what you're arguing about. Is creationism right or wrong is a different question from whether you should be allowed to teach creationism in schools.

I guess my point is you don't have to be anti-science to be creationist. In which case there's no need to teach a creationist alternative. Teach the science part of it in school and the "what it means" part in church or at home.

not sure how you can get there from here

Even George Will said creation science is an oxymoron.

[montestewart]

George Will a reliable source?

[dobrojim]

'pends who you ask

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, you can believe in the Bible/Torah and also believe in science.

Unless you're defining creationism as "interpreting the Bible/Torah's creation story as conflicting with science and believing the former over the latter."

Again, my point is that you can believe in the Bible/Torah's creation story and also believe in science.

[dobrojim]

again, not sure how you get there from here...

perhaps I would put it somewhat differently

many scientist practice religion/faith but they certainly don't agree
with a literal (plain words) interpretation of Genesis. They believe in
G-d but also believe in the BigBang and evolution.

[Severn Hoos]

Sigh. I wish I had some creationists to argue with on this board.

Maybe if they weren't mocked and belittled, they'd be more inclined to have that debate.

[dobrojim]

it's hard to argue with someone when their evidence eventually
boils down to 'that's what I believe'.

[Nivek]

Sigh. I wish I had some creationists to argue with on this board.

Maybe if they weren't mocked and belittled, they'd be more inclined to have that debate.

Shut up, you idiot.

[Severn Hoos]

it's hard to argue with someone when their evidence eventually
boils down to 'that's what I believe'.

And it's hard to debate (I prefer the term "debate" over "argue" anyway) with someone who tells you he already knows your argument, and it's wrong.

[Zonkerbl]

it's hard to argue with someone when their evidence eventually
boils down to 'that's what I believe'.

Well, instead of arguing about whether creationism is "right" or "provable" or whatever, argue about whether being creationist means you have to be anti-science. I mean the reason you argue with creationists is because they want to force your kids to learn about creationism in school. That's an argument you can win.

[Zonkerbl]

again, not sure how you get there from here...

perhaps I would put it somewhat differently

many scientist practice religion/faith but they certainly don't agree
with a literal (plain words) interpretation of Genesis. They believe in
G-d but also believe in the BigBang and evolution.

Well, that's what I've been saying -- if you think about it carefully enough, you can reconcile the Big Bang and evolution with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Ok, not so plain words. The only thing a creationist has to do is interpret Genesis from G-d's pov rather than Man's. G-d wrote it, right?

[dobrojim]

debate is fine with me - it's a kinder gentler word

the reason you argue with creationists is because teaching creation
(as science) leads directly to students who believe scientifically
in things for which there is no objective evidence.

edit to add - plus it favors some religion over others

we certainly don't want the govt to decide which religion wins.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, that's why that's an argument you can win. School is for science. The story of creation is religious. There's a scientific side to it that you learn at school, about the Big Bang and evolution. Then there's the "G-d created the world as a gift to Humankind and we all have a responsibility to take care of it and each other" side that you learn in church.

And I totally get how a lot of people believe that second part is the more important one. If that story isn't true, why not just trash the place? (Which is a different discussion entirely -- I always answer "I know lots of atheists and they aren't planet-hating litterers.")

See, what I hear when I talk to creationists is "I believe in the Bible, and I cannot believe in anything that contradicts it." That and "I don't want my kids learning stuff that contradicts the Bible."

I've never heard a creationist say "I don't believe in science."

[nuposse04]

Arguing pro creationism is very tricky IMO. You cannot disprove each side of the argument entirely, I think you can logically say one side has a higher probability of being the "truth."

I have my issues with the characteristics of the god of abraham but that'll be for a different time. What I do have issues is with people of faith throwing out evoultion as "just a theory" and this occurs A LOT with people who haven't studied science and do not understand the distinction between a mere hypothesis and a scientific theory. People are so quickly willing to write off one theory when they don't realize their most of modern technology is founded upon different scientific theories (gravity, relativity etc..). Rarely do I ever see arguments discrediting the science behind evolution, although this one guy on the current events board is a hardcore ID believer.

While I don't think you can teach creationism as a science, I do think the concept of a first cause has some plausibility in a philosophy class. I don't see philosophy being taught regularly in HS class rooms for some time, and while I hope it does happen, I imagine it'd open up a new massive can of worms.

[dobrojim]

http://tinyurl.com/9xb37ta

More from the same vid source on what Willard really thinks about something most
would consider an important issue of the day

He doesn't believe in a 2 state solution for the Palestinians. Says they have
no interest in Peace.

[popper]

Very interesting - I remember we had a similar discussion about a year ago that got pretty technical. I agree that creationism should not be included in the science curriculum. I'm worried however that macro evolution is taught in science class and most kids come away with a 100% belief that it is fact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any scientist that claims that he/she can prove that one species evolved into a different species. Nor to my recollection is there any evidence in the fossil records that macro evolution is a provable fact.

Alternatively, micro evolution is demonstrably true and is provable through a variety of sources.