Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What is important is validating both opinion and fact, the rest is of secondary importance. You are all not engaging the issue raised of philosophically validating both opinion and fact in one conceptual framework.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What is important is validating both opinion and fact, the rest is of secondary importance. You are all not engaging the issue raised of philosophically validating both opinion and fact in one conceptual framework.

Because science doesn't totally work this way. Sure I can have a scientific "opinion". That's called a hypothesis. Now I must validate my hypothesis with evidence. My hypothesis can either be shown to be correct or incorrect. Opinions only matter insomuch as a means to move to the next state to validate them.

Opinions about a creator, creators, the mechanism(s) and methods of creation rest on opinion and can not be tested scientifically. So creationism would serve no purpose in the arena of science. It does not conform to the the scientific method. It is mere conjecture by a multitude of cultures borrowing from or expressing a thought that can not be verified. If they were we would have done so by now.....

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Because science doesn't totally work this way. Sure I can have a scientific "opinion". That's called a hypothesis. Now I must validate my hypothesis with evidence. My hypothesis can either be shown to be correct or incorrect. Opinions only matter insomuch as a means to move to the next state to validate them.

Opinions about a creator, creators, the mechanism(s) and methods of creation rest on opinion and can not be tested scientifically. So creationism would serve no purpose in the arena of science. It does not conform to the the scientific method. It is mere conjecture by a multitude of cultures borrowing from or expressing a thought that can not be verified. If they were we would have done so by now.....

.....what you are in effect doing is destroying all opinion by replacing them with facts.

As a result you don't have any opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful.

All opinion applies to what makes a decision turn out the way it does, and all fact applies to the results of decisions. The creator and the creation, opinion and fact. That's the way it works.

You are simply wrong about this, utterly and obviously wrong.

The mechanism of creation is choosing, and choices can be measured.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

You're right, there are many creation myths, most religions have them. So many to choose from!

 

[Nietzsche]

.....what you are in effect doing is destroying all opinion by replacing them with facts.

As a result you don't have any opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful.

All opinion applies to what makes a decision turn out the way it does, and all fact applies to the results of decisions. The creator and the creation, opinion and fact. That's the way it works.

You are simply wrong about this, utterly and obviously wrong.

The mechanism of creation is choosing, and choices can be measured.

Your opinion of something does not change what it is.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your opinion of something does not change what it is.

And where does this leave your opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful? It has no place.

Only creationism provides room for opinion as well as fact.

 

[Nietzsche]

And where does this leave your opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful? It has no place.

Only creationism provides room for opinion as well as fact.

Would you like to expand your argument? You've roped evolution, how about gravity and germ theory?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Would you like to expand your argument? You've roped evolution, how about gravity and germ theory?

I already said, an organism is generally a modified descendant of it's parents. It is not the point that I would reject evolution theory, the point is that you reject creationism.

Creationism is the only way both opinion and fact can be validated in one framework. All opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful applies to what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

You also reject all scientific theory about how things are chosen in the universe.

 

[Nietzsche]

I already said, an organism is generally a modified descendant of it's parents. It is not the point that I would reject evolution theory, the point is that you reject creationism.

Creationism is the only way both opinion and fact can be validated in one framework. All opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful applies to what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

You also reject all scientific theory about how things are chosen in the universe.

I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere here.

I am arguing that Creationism, by which I mean the notion that life was created as-is in six literal days about six thousand years ago, is plainly wrong.

I am not arguing God could not have gotten the ball rolling.

I am only interested in teaching the fact that the Universe is 13-something Billion years old and that evolution is the process by which life has come to be what it is today. Not how it got first started. Just how it got to now.

 

[outhouse]

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

I think if it could be proven, it would be, but at this time it is not using these methods.

These answers you provide remain 100% unsubstantiated. Works great with faith though.

What is a creationist concept of free will? and how is it different from that of normal free will?

What aspect in common disclosure is required to prove creationism in any way?

Where in any law of nature do you see divine intervention?

I would also ask why does creation described in ancient religious books, go against scientific findings, in many places factual scientific findings by 100%

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere here.

I am arguing that Creationism, by which I mean the notion that life was created as-is in six literal days about six thousand years ago, is plainly wrong.

I am not arguing God could not have gotten the ball rolling.

I am only interested in teaching the fact that the Universe is 13-something Billion years old and that evolution is the process by which life has come to be what it is today. Not how it got first started. Just how it got to now.

I am arguing for the general philosophical structure of creationism, of a dualistic reality of creator and creation, in which both opinion and fact are validated.

Not any particular 6 days, or billions years creation, just the general framework of creator and creation.

The existence of the creator is a matter of opinion, and the existence of the creation is a matter of fact. Likewise the motivation of a decision is a matter of opinion, and the result of a decision is a matter of fact.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The existence of the creator is a matter of opinion, and the existence of the creation is a matter of fact.

More accurately the existence of the universe. "Creation" implies a creator.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

More accurately the existence of the universe. "Creation" implies a creator.

Maybe, but consider that it is a fact that a decision is made, simply measurable. It is a matter of opinion what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does. You could express the opinion it was "emptiness". That would be completely immoral IMO, but still logically valid.

You make a mistake in asserting that it is a matter of fact what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. Facts do not apply to that issue, what is good loving and beautiful is not a factual issue, it cannot be measured.

What is good, loving and beautiful is grounded on it being a matter of opinion what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. How an opinion of beauty is formed is by choosing about what it is that chooses. Beauty is a love of the way something looks, in saying something is beautiful, the existence of this love is a matter of opinion, and the love is what chooses the word "beautiful".

 

[outhouse]

in which both opinion and fact are validated.

It circles of faith only?

Scientifically, and legally, creation has been deemed pseudoscience by a judge, has it not?.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It circles of faith only?

Scientifically, and legally, creation has been deemed pseudoscience by a judge, has it not?.

Do you think freedom is real and relevant in the universe?

 

[outhouse]

Do you think freedom is real and relevant in the universe?

Freedom is defined by man alone, is it not?

In context, does it have anything to do with creationism?

 

[gnostic]

Only creationism provides room for opinion as well as fact.

Creationism is nothing more than pseudoscience and myths. It is no better than believing in magic. The creator and creation has more to with superstition and the supernatural.

Neither the bible nor the Qur'an deal with natural phenomena, but the supernatural and myths.

Look at the silly verses about Solomon in the Qur'an, where he had the ability to understand the speeches of ants, and can actually talk to the ants. It is fable or myth, with no basis in fact, let alone in reality.

It (creationism and religion) contains no scientific facts, because it contains no empirical or verifiable evidences.

Science deal with understanding nature, and only based their conclusions on the availability of evidences.

Except for theoretical science, which only deal with logic and mathematical proofs or solution alone, but most of science is not theoretical.

Neither the biblical creationism, nor the Islamic creationism have any evidences to support them, and absolutely no maths to even call it theoretical science.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

.....what you are in effect doing is destroying all opinion by replacing them with facts.

Well don't say it as if it's a bad thing. I mean.....opinion is fine but opinion, if it to be passed off as fact, can not be tested and falsified, isn't very useful.

As a result you don't have any opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful.

These are subjective and emotional terms....They serve little purpose in science.

All opinion applies to what makes a decision turn out the way it does, and all fact applies to the results of decisions.

I disagree. You can have an opinion without action. Facts aren't derived by mere opinion alone. You can have facts in various situations.

The creator and the creation, opinion and fact. That's the way it works.

The "creator" and "creation" are conjecture on behalf of the faithful. You have no testable evidence to substantiate the "opinion" a (creator) exist and you have no testable evidence that said creator created anything. This opinion (hypothesis) needs further testing before it can be regarded as fact. So how do you suppose we test the opinion a "creator" exist? That's your first challenge. Then your next challenge is to produce evidence that (YOUR) specific creator is the creator of what you contend he/she/it created.

You are simply wrong about this, utterly and obviously wrong.

Now this is where "opinion" comes into play but without evidence that I am indeed "wrong" as you assert you will have to produce evidence to substantiate your claim. Expressing your feelings that I am wrong isn't persuadable.

The mechanism of creation is choosing, and choices can be measured.

Who/what chose to create? Surely if an supposed "creator" made a choice then how can it be the so-called omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator believers tell us exist? Why would a god with such characteristics have a need to make a choice? If a god knows the outcome of all things within its creation then what is its point or purpose?

I contend that gods etc. don't exist and it's the minds of men (humans) that has created the creator to explain the natural world given their lack of ability to understand the natural world around them. It is man that has taken a concept such as gods and assigned all manner of human intelligence and emotions to it. I see no reason why a god must exist in order to answer our questions concerning the natural world or the universe for that matter.

 

[gnostic]

And where does this leave your opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful? It has no place.

That's because these words have nothing to with science.

Love is social and personal (or emotional) quality and concept. If you want discuss love then talk to your girlfriend or wife, or to your local psychiatrist or therapist, if you are confuse about love.

Beauty has nothing to do with science too, it is subjective opinion, that can't be measured.

And "good" have many different definitions, which is useless in science, because it required precision.

Are you talking about "good" as in morality? If so, then it has no place in scientific theory.

This topic is about creationism and should creationism be taught as science. The answer to that is absolute NO.

Creationism is religious subject, so it is more suited to be taught as theology, not as science.

What part of science and theology that you don't understand?

You can view your opinion, with regards to creationism, as a personal belief, but don't confuse your belief with fact, because facts required evidences, and you don't have facts.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Freedom is defined by man alone, is it not?

In context, does it have anything to do with creationism?

Freedom is a fact of nature. Things in the universe can turn out several different ways, people also can turn out several different ways..