Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Nietzsche]

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.

Then why are you arguing against evolution? Evolution is simply the process by which life changes, NOT the original 'How' it came to be. That's still very much in debate within both theological and scientific circles

 

[Rick O'Shez]

By the way I didn't vote in the poll because of the highly dubious wording.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It's explanation of opinion is extremely confusing (the result of choosing about what it is that chooses).

I am sure it would be confusing to you, however it is just a very simple and transparent procedure. You just have to follow the procedure exactly.

choosing = to make 1 of alternative future's the present

So then, somebody makes a choice between x and y chooses x.

Then I want to make an opinion.

Ok, now the instruction says I have to make a choice about what it is that made the decision turn out x instead of y.

I need alternatives to make a choice, well look at common discourse and then you find the words love and hate are common words used for this procedure. So then I choose between love and hate as what it is that made the decision turn out x instead of y. I choose it was love, my opinion is that love made the decision turn out x instead of y. That's it, I succesfully formed an opinion!

So what this means in practise is, when you call somebody hateful, then in principle that opinion says as much about your own emotions, as it does about the emotions of the one you are calling hateful.

You express your own emotions in choosing the term "hateful", and the term hateful is about the emotions of the other person.

That is how civilization works.....

 

[Nietzsche]

I am sure it would be confusing to you, however it is just a very simple and transparent procedure. You just have to follow the procedure exactly.

choosing = to make 1 of alternative future's the present

So then, somebody makes a choice between x and y chooses x.

Then I want to make an opinion.

Ok, now the instruction says I have to make a choice about what it is that made the decision turn out x instead of y.

I need alternatives to make a choice, well look at common discourse and then you find the words love and hate are common words used for this procedure. So then I choose between love and hate as what it is that made the decision turn out x instead of y. I choose it was love, my opinion is that love made the decision turn out x instead of y. That's it, I succesfully formed an opinion!

So what this means in practise is, when you call somebody hateful, then in principle that opinion says as much about your own emotions, as it does about the emotions of the one you are calling hateful.

You express your own emotions in choosing the term "hateful", and the term hateful is about the emotions of the other person.

That is how civilization works.....

Would you argue the same for the teaching of astrology along with astronomy, alchemy with chemistry?

 

[McBell]

By the way I didn't vote in the poll because of the highly dubious wording.

Same here.
The wording seems to me to indicate hidden agenda.

The term "Magician's Choice" comes to mind.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am sure it would be confusing to you, however it is just a very simple and transparent procedure. You just have to follow the procedure exactly.

choosing = to make 1 of alternative future's the present

So then, somebody makes a choice between x and y chooses x.

Then I want to make an opinion.

Ok, now the instruction says I have to make a choice about what it is that made the decision turn out x instead of y.

I need alternatives to make a choice, well look at common discourse and then you find the words love and hate are common words used for this procedure. So then I choose between love and hate as what it is that made the decision turn out x instead of y. I choose it was love, my opinion is that love made the decision turn out x instead of y. That's it, I succesfully formed an opinion!

So what this means in practise is, when you call somebody hateful, then in principle that opinion says as much about your own emotions, as it does about the emotions of the one you are calling hateful.

You express your own emotions in choosing the term "hateful", and the term hateful is about the emotions of the other person.

That is how civilization works.....

Well, thanks for addressing one of my questions, I guess.
You have an unusual turn of phrase, so following your meaning is often a challenge. That is not supposed to be a criticism, just an explanation.
Thing is, nothing you say here really causes me any grief, near as I can tell. You put it in vastly different ways to what I would, but if I'm understanding it right, it's fine. I don't see the neccessity of creation, nor what you mean by creation.

My assumption when you talk about freedom is that you are talking about free will?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well, thanks for addressing one of my questions, I guess.
You have an unusual turn of phrase, so following your meaning is often a challenge. That is not supposed to be a criticism, just an explanation.
Thing is, nothing you say here really causes me any grief, near as I can tell. You put it in vastly different ways to what I would, but if I'm understanding it right, it's fine. I don't see the neccessity of creation, nor what you mean by creation.

My assumption when you talk about freedom is that you are talking about free will?

I focused on the most important thing, which in my mind is acceptance of the validity of opinion.

By accepting the validity of opinion this way, you get a distinct category from the material domain, which chooses over the material domain.

Love and hate choose, and the existence of them is a matter of opinion.

You have not thought this through, this is not the sort of thing that agrees with your previously stated position.

 

[outhouse]

Only creationism validates both fact and opinion,

Can you substantiate this claim of fact ?

What evidence outside opinion/faith can you provide?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I focused on the most important thing, which in my mind is acceptance of the validity of opinion.

By accepting the validity of opinion this way, you get a distinct category from the material domain, which chooses over the material domain.

Love and hate choose, and the existence of them is a matter of opinion.

You have not thought this through, this is not the sort of thing that agrees with your previously stated position.

I have a lot of trouble understanding some of your points.

Let me try and paraphrase your view, and see how close I am;

• Love and hate are either material facts driven by chemicals, or whatever else, or exist apart from materiality.
• Creationism is the only viewpoint which allows for love and hate to exist apart from fact.
• Atheism reduces all things to fact/materality, and therefore doesn't allow for opinion/freewill, since all opinion/freewill is simply an output of facts in any case.

Close to what you mean?

 

[psychoslice]

By the way I didn't vote in the poll because of the highly dubious wording.

exactly what I thought.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Can you substantiate this claim of fact ?

What evidence outside opinion/faith can you provide?

1 It can be proven, by showing the logical consistency of the creationist concept of free will, that it works without internal contradictions.

2 Also it can be shown that the creationist understanding of free will is in line with the understanding in common discourse.

3 And also it can be shown how it is in agreement with most laws of nature, with some slight adjustments to the interpretation of the laws of nature.

1 In exploring the concept of free will, you can see that you need a free way to identify what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, or otherwise you will run into internal contradictions. If you try a forced way of identifying agency, like with measuring, evidence forcing to a conclusion about what it is, then what you are really saying is that "what is free is forced". That internal contradiction is a logical error .

2 For example how creationism is in agreement with common discourse, the statement: the painting is beautiful.

The conclusion "beautiful" must be chosen. The answer "ugly" must be available to choose as well. The word "beautiful" must be in reference to what it is that chooses. Beauty is a love of the way the painting looks. The asserted love chooses the word beautiful.

3 To get freedom the laws of nature must be interpreted so as that objects consist of the laws of nature. It means the fundamental units of existence are represented by the symbols in mathematics, instead of a complex thing like a particle or string. As laws unto themselves then objects can be shown to exhibit freedom.

The mathematics about choosing does not need any symbol at all for what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, in order to function. The complete absence of any such symbol shows that it is categorically a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I have a lot of trouble understanding some of your points.

Let me try and paraphrase your view, and see how close I am;

• Love and hate are either material facts driven by chemicals, or whatever else, or exist apart from materiality.
• Creationism is the only viewpoint which allows for love and hate to exist apart from fact.
• Atheism reduces all things to fact/materality, and therefore doesn't allow for opinion/freewill, since all opinion/freewill is simply an output of facts in any case.

Close to what you mean?

I think you should just focus on how forming an opinion works in creationism. That conceptually this makes for a category of things, which things choose, and the existence of which things is a matter of opinion.

Atheism, methodological naturalism, are nowhere on the map in explaining how forming an opinion works, those provide no room for opinion yes.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...some slight adjustments to the interpretation of the laws of nature.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The conclusion "beautiful" must be chosen. The answer "ugly" must be available to choose as well. The word "beautiful" must be in reference to what it is that chooses.

Not a good analogy because this is an extremely subjective perception, beauty being in the eye of the beholder.

If you mean that people must have the freedom to believe in creationism, well, sure. But everyone else has the freedom to point out that this is a religious belief, and that the observations of the natural world do not support it.

 

[Nietzsche]

1 It can be proven, by showing the logical consistency of the creationist concept of free will, that it works without internal contradictions.

2 Also it can be shown that the creationist understanding of free will is in line with the understanding in common discourse.

3 And also it can be shown how it is in agreement with most laws of nature, with some slight adjustments to the interpretation of the laws of nature.

1 In exploring the concept of free will, you can see that you need a free way to identify what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, or otherwise you will run into internal contradictions. If you try a forced way of identifying agency, like with measuring, evidence forcing to a conclusion about what it is, then what you are really saying is that "what is free is forced". That internal contradiction is a logical error .

2 For example how creationism is in agreement with common discourse, the statement: the painting is beautiful.

The conclusion "beautiful" must be chosen. The answer "ugly" must be available to choose as well. The word "beautiful" must be in reference to what it is that chooses. Beauty is a love of the way the painting looks. The asserted love chooses the word beautiful.

3 To get freedom the laws of nature must be interpreted so as that objects consist of the laws of nature. It means the fundamental units of existence are represented by the symbols in mathematics, instead of a complex thing like a particle or string. As laws unto themselves then objects can be shown to exhibit freedom.

The mathematics about choosing does not need any symbol at all for what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, in order to function. The complete absence of any such symbol shows that it is categorically a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

So you aren't even arguing that evolution is not a fact anymore. You're arguing that you still have the right to be wrong.

In that case, yes. You, as an adult, do. You can be as wrong as you like. But you do not get to be willfully wrong and expect to teach children the same. That's evil at its most basic, petty and indefensible level and I would hope you are stricken down should you go down that path.

 

[viole]

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.

Facts have the bad habit of not caring about our opinions.

Non-facts are more tolerant.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So you aren't even arguing that evolution is not a fact anymore. You're arguing that you still have the right to be wrong.

In that case, yes. You, as an adult, do. You can be as wrong as you like. But you do not get to be willfully wrong and expect to teach children the same. That's evil at its most basic, petty and indefensible level and I would hope you are stricken down should you go down that path.

You are arguing a strawman.

Children would benefit enormously from being taught creationism, because creationism makes for better facts and better opinions. Children will better know how to express their emotions and form an opinion, and better know how to accurately and exhaustively copy from nature to obtain facts. They also would develop a keen sense, and knowledge, about how things are decided in society, and in the universe in general.

There are enormous and immediate practical benefits to be had from learning creationism, no matter what age you are.

It is very obvious that a philosophy like materialism provides no accommodation at all for forming opinions. It obviously only provides accommodation for obtaining facts, not for forming opinions about what is good, loving and beautiful. And failing to provide distinct accommodation for opinions, then inevitably opinions and facts end up in one big mess. That's bad for science, as well as bad for religion, bad all round.

 

[Nietzsche]

You are arguing a strawman.

Children would benefit enormously from being taught creationism, because creationism makes for better facts and better opinions. Children will better know how to express their emotions and form an opinion, and better know how to accurately and exhaustively copy from nature to obtain facts. They also would develop a keen sense, and knowledge, about how things are decided in society, and in the universe in general.

There are enormous and immediate practical benefits to be had from learning creationism, no matter what age you are.

It is very obvious that a philosophy like materialism provides no accommodation at all for forming opinions. It obviously only provides accommodation for obtaining facts, not for forming opinions about what is good, loving and beautiful. And failing to provide distinct accommodation for opinions, then inevitably opinions and facts end up in one big mess. That's bad for science, as well as bad for religion, bad all round.

Evolution is a documented fact. I can bring you any evidence you desire so long as your request is what evolution actually is. Would you like to see the complete transitional fossil record of the Manatee? We have a complete record of it. Where it transitioned from land-creature to sea-creature.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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 OP seems to be incoherent. Creationism doesn't validate fact. If you believe it does can you present the evidence?

Considering there are so many creation myths just how should we go about validating your creation myth and placing it above others? Just what is the criteria?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

With creationism facts only can be taught in science class. By learning creationism students will be better to distinguish fact from opinion, and produce pure facts in science class, without their opinion mixed into the facts.

This makes no since. Why can't we just teach the facts and leave the fiction in the library in the section labeled "Fiction"....?

What happens now is that students put matters of opinion, like morality, into the scientific fact category. That makes for facts which are prejudiced, and opinion which are asserted as fact.

This might be what some students do but in the world of scientific reseearch and publication...opinions are checked at the door.

Take something simple and practical like giving an accurate eyewitness account. If a student knows that to obtain facts one must copy, and not choose, in producing a conclusion, then that is good guidance. It will produce more accurate eye witness accounts, they will have better skills of observation.

Wrong. Eyewitness accounts...especially multiple eyewitness accounts by their very nature are inconsistent. People process what they hear, see, smell, feel and taste differently. Eyewitness testimony isn't an exact science. You're usually taking information from all sides to find the probability. The actual "scientific method" doesn't work that way.