Should creationism be taught as the foundation of science?

[Midnight Rain]

You can only form an opinion by choosing the conclusion. Facts are obtained by evidence forcing to a copy or model of what is evidenced. That is obvious, and that is creationism.

I notice how you are confused about the fact that I have given you an explanation, with your opinion that my explanation is wrong. You make of that, that I have not given you an explanation.

You are confusing opinion with fact because you fail to acknowledge the line between matters of opinion and matters of fact, which line is exactly between what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, opinion, and the resulting decision, fact.

I am fully aware of the difference between fact an opinion. I have clearly demonstrated this yet you continue to convoluted the matter with your claim that I do not.

I understand that there is an aspect of "Free will" involved with "choosing" certain things. However not everything is chosen and even within our choices there are driving forces. This much is understood. Why is a painting beautiful? Give you a hint its not because of "choice".

You have just rejected that an opinion requires choosing the conclusion.

I reject that creationism is science. Conclusions are usually derived from reason and evidence. There are cases where it is not but those are what we like to call unsubstantiated beliefs.

You also seem to equate opinion on matters that are totally subjective with the ability to come to a conclusion. These are two different processes from the get go.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No one here is against freedom of opinion, Mohammad.

Every evolutionist here has rejected the basis of all opinion, which is that a conclusion about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, can only be reached by choosing it.

About 10 times in this topic evolutionists have argued that opinion is wrong, because the conclusion in an opinion is not forced by evidence. They have also argued that opinion is inferior to a fact. They have dismissed opinion for the sole reason that it is not fact. etc. All quite bizarre derogotary remarks about the value of opinions.

How any Muslim or Christian can associate with this sort of evolutionist talk shows that somebody adopting the label Muslim or Christian means nothing much of anything of itself. Somebody who has no idea about how things are chosen in the universe, and who has no belief about God relating to those decisions, I have no idea what religion that is.

 

[Shad]

When you say the painting is ugly, or it is beautiful, each conclusion is equally logically valid. The logical validity of an opinion depends on that the conclusion is chosen. Each conclusion is logically valid, but not all conclusions may be morally acceptable. Opinions which are forced by evidence are not opinions at all, they are facts.

It is patently obvious that Shad and a lot of other evolutionists suppress opinion altogether. Saying opinions have a lower amount of certainty is making opinions into an inferior form of a fact. Shad is certainly no exception, this view is rampant amongst evolutionists.

It is very obvious that materialism, physicalism etc. provides room for statements like, "the earth is round", "the earth goes round the sun". Bravo for materialism. Now the statement, " the earth is beautiful". It does not figure at all in materialism, beauty is not a material thing. It is simply required for a functional concept of subjectivity that as a matter of opinion there is a spiritual domain, which chooses over the material domain.

Remember, nations of tens of millions of people can come under the spell of bizarre ideologies in which freedom is ignored, and what is good and bad is asserted as fact. Remember how insanely far people can and did go with this idea to ignore freedom, and ignore opinion. One should simply.....accept creationism, accept freedom is real and relevant, and accept that an opinion is arrived at by choosing about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does.

Theistic evolutionist, the title does not make clear enough that you accept freedom is real, and accept opinion is valid. One should simply and openly support creationism. It does not matter that the choices described in scripture would not be accurate because, science cannot even properly describe any single decision in the entire universe whatsoever, because the mathematics of choosing has not been worked out yet. If science had some better knowledge about how choosing works, okay, then it is time perhaps to reevaluate your interpretation of scripture. But they do not have it at all, the maths about choosing is simply not finished yet.

When you internalize an opinion that is fine. Only your judgement is involved. If you present an opinion to others it will be evaluated. People will fine it justified or unjustified, well-informed or ill-informed, valid or not valid. Depending on the topic an opinion will always be subjective as per your examples. However since you made the claim creationism also matches science then it is not merely an opinion but a scientific concept. One which can be evaluated by an objective standard. However such a concept is not falsifiable so fails the bar. One can move the concept to a philosophical view point as it is often the best approach at this time. It is this part of the OP most are talking about not your opinion side of the OP but the fact side. You hold the opinion that it matches facts, others disagree.

No one is silencing you, at least I am not. I am just disagreeing with your opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

When you internalize an opinion that is fine. Only your judgement is involved. If you present an opinion to others it will be evaluated. People will fine it justified or unjustified, well-informed or ill-informed, valid or not valid. Depending on the topic an opinion will always be subjective as per your examples. However since you made the claim creationism also matches science then it is not merely an opinion but a scientific concept. One which can be evaluated by an objective standard. However such a concept is not falsifiable so fails the bar. One can move the concept to a philosophical view point as it is often the best approach at this time. It is this part of the OP most are talking about not your opinion side of the OP but the fact side. You hold the opinion that it matches facts, others disagree.

No one is silencing you, at least I am not. I am just disagreeing with your opinion.

You are still just misrepresenting the argument for creationism. In creationism, unlike in any other philosophy, facts and opinions are clearly accommodated and distinct from each other.

Opinion applies to what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, and fact applies to the resulting decisions.

Which means the scientific part to creationism is the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. If freedom is not real and relevant in the universe, then creationism is found wrong.

You have no evidence whatsoever that freedom is not real and relevant in the universe, you are just pretending that creationism has been discounted while it has not been.

We basically have the same evidence about how the universe operates. You will probably have some more detailed knowledge about some things than I. Something that I might have only seen talked about superficially on TV or something, you might know in detail.

From this basically same data we both already have, the conclusion can be reasonably drawn that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. When you look at how organisms are put together, you can reasonably draw the conclusion that they are chosen as a whole. By just looking at nature you can get an indication about how things are chosen. You just must use your eyes and focus on the decisions being made.

 

[dawny0826]

I don't believe you have anger, I don't have to believe it because it is a matter of opinion, and I choose not to. And that's how to deal with people who don't accept the freedom of opinon.

It would be moot as to whether or not you believed my anger to be genuine. Teachers are obligated to instruct in fact. There's not enough time in American public schools to cover topics not grounded in fact, topics that don't align with standards of learning.

If you feel that there's time and room for unproven concepts in the American classroom, you're incredibly out of touch with the educational systems in America and how American citizens ALREADY protest that which isn't secular.

This type of instruction belongs in a private educational institution.

 

[Shad]

You are still just misrepresenting the argument for creationism. In creationism, unlike in any other philosophy, facts and opinions are clearly accommodated and distinct from each other.

Opinion applies to what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, and fact applies to the resulting decisions.

Which means the scientific part to creationism is the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. If freedom is not real and relevant in the universe, then creationism is found wrong.

You have no evidence whatsoever that freedom is not real and relevant in the universe, you are just pretending that creationism has been discounted while it has not been.

We basically have the same evidence about how the universe operates. You will probably have some more detailed knowledge about some things than I. Something that I might have only seen talked about superficially on TV or something, you might know in detail.

From this basically same data we both already have, the conclusion can be reasonably drawn that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. When you look at how organisms are put together, you can reasonably draw the conclusion that they are chosen as a whole. By just looking at nature you can get an indication about how things are chosen. You just must use your eyes and focus on the decisions being made.

What you misunderstand is in the real world your opinion on a concept since you can not prove it or justify it. Fact wise creationism is not validated. Opinion wise it is subjective so again is moot. I am not required to prove a negative nor do I claim there is no such thing as freedom. I am not a hard determinist.

If we have the same data then said data contains no evidence of God. God is an assumption tacked on to the data after the fact by you. Thus is an assumption which you have no supported. Hence this is your opinion not a demonstration of facts. An opinion I still disagree with.

How are things chosen? How is something chosen in nature by non-sentient things. Does a river choose it's course? Provide examples not statements.

 

[gnostic]

You are making yourself look ignorant, Mohammad...and I shouldn't be at all surprise by this, because everything you had written are wrong.

No one object to opinion, but if you are going to talk about science - and I am just talking evolution, I am talking about any branch or field of science - like physics, chemistry, biology, - or formal science - like logics and mathematics - they deal with facts, not opinions.

Even in businesses, like accountings and finance, they are not interested in teaching students opinions; they have to follow standard and the correct techniques or procedures, in balancing books, look at cash-flows or at profits/losses.

Students learn facts (like evidences or testing scientific predictions) in these science classes, not opinions.

If you only want opinions, then you in the wrong classes; you should be taking art critique, English literature, psychology, law.

Have you ever studied science at all?

I am more of applied science guy, because I am a qualified civil engineer and computer scientist. So none of my subjects involved biology, let alone biological evolution (though I did have learn about timbers, but that had more to with chemical or physical properties of the materials, not biology). In civil engineering, lot of my (applied) science background involved in physics and maths (and some geology subjects), and it was the same when I was studying with computer science (though more about the electrical or electronic side to physics).

My point, is that none of these "science" subjects, required me to learn opinions, only facts and applying the correct methodology.

Why are singling out evolution, Mohammad? No other biological science required to learn about opinions, just scientific facts.

I still say that creationism is a religious and theological subject, not a science subject, so to answer your original question about should creationism be taught in science classroom, it is still an absolute NO!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If we have the same data then said data contains no evidence of God. God is an assumption tacked on to the data after the fact by you. Thus is an assumption which you have no supported. Hence this is your opinion not a demonstration of facts. An opinion I still disagree with.

Yes I told you at least 5 times that the existence of God is a matter of opinion according to creationism. But you just keep on pretending that the existence of God is asserted as a matter of fact in creationism.

Only that freedom is real and relevant, that things are chosen in the universe is asserted as fact in creationism, not the existence of God.

It is the particular most excellent benefit of creationism that it validates opinion in general, as distinct from fact. It validates the opinion that God exists, and it validates the opinion that God does not exist, it validates not making any opinion at all on whether or not God exists. Creationism has rules for how forming an opinion works.

- the conclusion must be chosen
- the conclusion must be about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does

Basically any statement which abides by those rules is a logically valid opinion according to creationism.

There are more rules that can be added, but many of those rules would be arbitrarily culturally bound.

This is the feature which makes creationism exceedingly more practical to materialism, because materialism provides no room for any opinion about what is good, loving and beautiful.

And because materialism provides no room for opinion, then opinions inevitably end up mingling in with facts, because in materialism opinions have nowhere else to go. And then you get bad facts, and bad opinions. Pseudoscientific social darwinism for example, where what is good and bad is both fact and opinion, a big mess.

 

[gnostic]

Yes I told you at least 5 times that the existence of God is a matter of opinion according to creationism. But you just keep on pretending that the existence of God is asserted as a matter of fact in creationism.

No, actually, it is you who creationism to be BOTH OPINIONS and FACTS.

Have you forgotten your OP? You wrote:

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.

This was followed by your incomprehensible lists of

1. Creator = subjectivity or opinions
   
2. and Creation = objectivity or facts.

No, they (Creator and Creation) are both subjective and opinion. Creation has nothing to do with facts, because facts required evidences, and there are no evidences to support either ones (Creator or Creation).

You can't have Creation without a Creator (or god, if you will), because in the Abrahamic religions, they are linked.

And have you forgotten your title question or your poll:

Should creationism be taught as foundation of science?​

Only a couple of creationists believed creationism, creation or creator should be taught as foundation of science, or would allow creationism be taught in the science classroom.

But most people reject the idea that creationism (both creator and creation) to be in any way related to science...even among the religious or theists. Most religious and theists think or believe that creationism have to do with faith or belief, therefore a matter of opinions, not facts or certainly not science.

You are the ONLY ONE who think that creationism is BOTH facts and opinions.

And you repeatedly believe that all evolutionists to be atheists, when clearly as many theists as atheists have argued against your personal opinions about facts/opinions of creationism.

Creationism never validated facts, because it is a myth, whether you believe in the Qur'an or the Bible. And creationism being a myth or religious concept, therefore revolving around one's personal belief or faith, .

Science deal with facts and evidences, creationism don't, because it deal with only belief, therefore belief = opinion.

Your argument, claims or assertions, have been faulty or flawed at the very beginning of this thread.

 

[outhouse]

the conclusion must be chosen
- the conclusion must be about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does

Don't you think factual evidence leads to a conclusion?

Evolution is now fact in this modern world. It is not up for debate.

So now that leaves us with religion trying to substantiate its claims, have you done this?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Don't you think factual evidence leads to a conclusion?

Evolution is now fact in this modern world. It is not up for debate.

So now that leaves us with religion trying to substantiate its claims, have you done this?

....I will just keep on repeating, creationism validates both fact and opinion. In creationism a fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion, resulting in a copy / model of what is evidenced.

The fact that "the earth is round," is a copy of the actual earth to a world of words. The word "earth", represents the actual earth, in the world of words. And the word "round" represents the roundness of the actual earth, in the world of words. And ofcourse mathematics can in principle make exhaustive copies of things in nature, to the world of maths. Those are what facts are.

In creationism these facts generally only apply to anything chosen. This means for example it is a fact that the earth exists, therefore the earth can also not exist. So in creationism the existence of all objects is conditional, all objects are chosen in some way. You can see this for example with the supposed singularity. There isn't any earth when the universe consists of only a singularity. Pretty much everything in the universe we see now, does not exist when the universe is only a singularity. So you see between the possibilities of a singularity, and the universe as it is now, it is shown pretty much everything is chosen in some way, because everything we see now has an alternative possibility of just a singularity.

About evolution, it does not describe origins, it describes evolution. Creationism describes the actual origins, with a decision something new is created. I can see a baby being a modified descendent of it's parent, this does not describe origins of the baby. The decisions by which the baby came to be, all decisions, describe the origin of the baby. Freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and creationism "studies" how things are chosen in the universe.

But I don't care much to study it myself, because other people can do that. The achievements of progress have been very exaggerated if you ask me, because ofcourse those achievements pale in comparison with the creation of man and woman and the universe.

What I find more important is the opinion side to creationism, that logically a conclusion about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, can only be reached by choosing the conclusion. That way we can express our emotions about what is good, loving and beautiful, and have faith in God. You can also make the opinion that no God exist, or rather, have opinions in which God does not even figure as an alternative to choose. While ofcourse not all conclusions are morally acceptable, not all opinions are morally acceptable.

Freedom of opinion, democracy etc. the good life. If all people accepted creationism, then that would be relatively easy to achieve practically. Although ofcourse, as I said, creationism still allows for completely immoral opinions. The received wisdom is that the knowledge of good and evil is the main, manipulating sin, the original sin. And creationism would make this sin more practically controllable, because creationism rejects by logic that what is good and evil is a matter of fact. So instead of having knowledge, facts, about what is good and evil, there would be opinion about what is good and evil.

 

[outhouse]

....I will just keep on repeating, creationism validates both fact and opinion

How does creation validate fact?

 

[outhouse]

Creationism describes the actual origins

But it does not substantiate those claims.

And its claims go against credible knowledge.

 

[Midnight Rain]

....I will just keep on repeating, creationism validates both fact and opinion. In creationism a fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion, resulting in a copy / model of what is evidenced.

Imma break this down to show you where you go wrong as best I can. Kay?

The fact that "the earth is round," is a copy of the actual earth to a world of words. The word "earth", represents the actual earth, in the world of words. And the word "round" represents the roundness of the actual earth, in the world of words. And of course mathematics can in principle make exhaustive copies of things in nature, to the world of maths. Those are what facts are.

What you mean to say is descriptions. We say the earth is spherical because this is somewhat true. No one has stated that the earth is a perfect sphere. That would be inaccurate. But the overall shape of the earth is in fact spherical or sphere like. This doesn't actually factor in "choice" as of yet. It is simply descriptions

In creationism these facts generally only apply to anything chosen. This means for example it is a fact that the earth exists, therefore the earth can also not exist. So in creationism the existence of all objects is conditional, all objects are chosen in some way. You can see this for example with the supposed singularity. There isn't any earth when the universe consists of only a singularity. Pretty much everything in the universe we see now, does not exist when the universe is only a singularity. So you see between the possibilities of a singularity, and the universe as it is now, it is shown pretty much everything is chosen in some way, because everything we see now has an alternative possibility of just a singularity.

This is where you take things and go weird with it. The earth exists is a universally accepted conclusion based on the evidence. However we do not know if there was a possibility of it not existing. And even if it didn't it wouldn't mean that a conscious entity was required for it to exist. You have made a huge leap you need to bridge before you can go further. You have stated "A" which is "The earth exists", "B" which is "it was not like this eternally" and "C" which is "it must have been chosen by choice". "A" and "B" do not indicate "C". You must provide us the reasoning and debate BEHIND your belief that the Earth MUST HAVE BEEN chosen.

About evolution, it does not describe origins, it describes evolution. Creationism describes the actual origins, with a decision something new is created. I can see a baby being a modified descendent of it's parent, this does not describe origins of the baby. The decisions by which the baby came to be, all decisions, describe the origin of the baby. Freedom is real and relevant in the universe, and creationism "studies" how things are chosen in the universe.

You are correct. Evolution does not describe the origin of life. But it can describe the way in which the baby was created via the DNA of the parents. Though I don't see how this ties in under your argument.

But I don't care much to study it myself, because other people can do that. The achievements of progress have been very exaggerated if you ask me, because ofcourse those achievements pale in comparison with the creation of man and woman and the universe.

If you don't care to study then that means you don't care to know. You don't "know" if its been overexaggerated. You are simply assuming it.

What I find more important is the opinion side to creationism, that logically a conclusion about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, can only be reached by choosing the conclusion. That way we can express our emotions about what is good, loving and beautiful, and have faith in God. You can also make the opinion that no God exist, or rather, have opinions in which God does not even figure as an alternative to choose. While ofcourse not all conclusions are morally acceptable, not all opinions are morally acceptable.

Lets talk more about the "process" of choosing. Go into depth because you have only mentioned it. What are the components of "choosing" and "choice"? What about gravity and other natural laws? What role do they play? Does everything involve choice or is it only certain things?

And again this doesn't in and of itself actually contradict evolution on this specific subject. Not all opinions are correct. Not all choices are productive.

Freedom of opinion, democracy etc. the good life. If all people accepted creationism, then that would be relatively easy to achieve practically. Although ofcourse, as I said, creationism still allows for completely immoral opinions. The received wisdom is that the knowledge of good and evil is the main, manipulating sin, the original sin. And creationism would make this sin more practically controllable, because creationism rejects by logic that what is good and evil is a matter of fact. So instead of having knowledge, facts, about what is good and evil, there would be opinion about what is good and evil.

Freedom of Opinion has nothing to do with creationism or evolution. Its an ethical issue.
Though I would argue that accepting creationism would destroy freedom of Opinion. Especially since we would have to "choose" which "creationism" is the correct one.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You can't have Creation without a Creator (or god, if you will), because in the Abrahamic religions, they are linked.

That statement is shown untrue by that there is no symbol in the mathematics about choosing for what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. The mathematics is fully functional without any such symbol.

One can simply note the fact that a decision is made, without making an opinion about what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

One can make the opinion it is hate that makes the decision turn out the way it does, or make the opinion it is love, or make the opinion it is God the holy spirit. All of these are valid opinions, provided they are chosen from available alternatives. So in making the opinion that that it is God that makes the decision turn out the way it does, besides the alternative God, one also needs an alternative like "love" or "hate", or whatever, to choose from.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Does everything involve choice or is it only certain things?

Force is also acknowledged in creationism besides freedom, obviously in creationism force applies to obtaining facts, evidence forces to a conclusion.

How force applies exactly is sketchy still, it's got something to do with that the totality of the universe can only be 0, apparently.I already mentioned that in creationism objects consist of the laws of nature, rather as now in science, objects behave according to the laws of nature. As laws unto themselves objects can exhibit freedom, and freedom is in accordance with creation theory. That is theory by an ardent evolutionist, Peter Rowlands. I only use the theory for creationism because it establishes the fact that freedom is real, and creationism asserts freedom is real. Other parts of this theory may be inconsistent with creationism, in which case creationism predicts that these parts are wrong. Ofcourse then this theory would likewise counter predict that creationism is wrong.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Force is also acknowledged in creationism besides freedom, obviously in creationism force applies to obtaining facts, evidence forces to a conclusion.

How force applies exactly is sketchy still, it's got something to do with that the totality of the universe can only be 0, apparently.I already mentioned that in creationism objects consist of the laws of nature, rather as now in science, objects behave according to the laws of nature. As laws unto themselves objects can exhibit freedom, and freedom is in accordance with creation theory. That is theory by an ardent evolutionist, Peter Rowlands. I only use the theory for creationism because it establishes the fact that freedom is real, and creationism asserts freedom is real. Other parts of this theory may be inconsistent with creationism, in which case creationism predicts that these parts are wrong. Ofcourse then this theory would likewise counter predict that creationism is wrong.

Why would the total energy in the universe be 0? All evidence points to the counter of this.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why would the total energy in the universe be 0? All evidence points to the counter of this.

An action has an equal and opposite reaction, making a totality of 0. So you can have something, while the totality is still nothing.

 

[Midnight Rain]

An action has an equal and opposite reaction, making a totality of 0. So you can have something, while the totality is still nothing.

This is self contradicting. You still have a positive amount of energy. It is how that energy is transfered should be equal. This merely suggests that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It does not indicate that it equals 0. In fact if energy was 0 then there could be no action or reaction.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But it does not substantiate those claims.

And its claims go against credible knowledge.

The fact that freedom is in fact real I get from my daily life. If you want to doubt it, or deny it, I am just not interested. I don't see how it is fair to spend all time endlessly doubting and denying freedom is real, and spend no time in exploring the reality of freedom.

I find it is very credible that freedom is real and relevant in the universe, when you go look for how things are chosen. I already mentioned, the DNA system can be as like a 3D computergame world. This would make it more easy for organisms to be chosen, first the adult DNA-organism is chosen in the DNA world, and then the physical organism is developed to adulthood with the DNA-organism as guidance for the construction. I find this a very credible theory on how organisms develop into adulthood, it seems to me impossible for an organism to develop to adulthood without a representation of the finished product. This also explains why lots of DNA does not code for any proteins. Parts of that non-coding DNA could be environmental information that is used by the organism, but part of the DNA could just be environment in the DNA world which only function is to guide the choosing of adult organisms in the DNA-world. Certainly it seems to me appealing the hypothesis that the DNA world of a single human being is alike a garden of Eden, with representations of both man and woman (in an environment with trees and animals and whatnot) one of which has been developed into adulthood. It seems to me a man knows the shapes of a woman too well, and likewise a woman knows the shape of a man too well, above coincedence.