• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

JoeMorgue said:
BTW we're all savvy to the:

"You're wrong. Here's facts that show it"
"OH SO YOU JUST WANT TO BE THE TRUTH POLICE! I GUESS YOU JUST WANT AN ECHO CHAMBER! YOU'RE CLOSE MINDED! WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHT TO THINK WHAT I WANT?"
game and none of us are impressed.
Click to expand...

Yup... EVERY ******* TIME A ******* COCONUT IN EVERY ******* THREAD!!!!
 
psionl0 said:
Maybe the GOP uses "We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced" as a euphemism for teaching creationism instead of evolution but you didn't state that in your post. I can only respond to what you actually posted.

FWIW trying to discuss ID in a scientific context is like asking a computer how it feels. The scientific method is not capable of dealing with philosophical questions. It can only deal with observable data.
Click to expand...

I said spare me.
 
varwoche said:
Ignoring the motivations is ignoring the context. Ignoring the context, and taking the words strictly at face value, isn't critical thinking. That may not seem clear to you perched up on that high horse.
Click to expand...

Someone who is skeptical about skeptics hasn't the first clue what "critical thinking" (the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment) actually is. There are certain scenarios and subjects that can be utterly dismissed without the need for critical thinking because they are flat out wrong on their face.. for example, claims that the Earth...

1. is flat.
2. is only a few thousand years old.
3. is created by a some magic invisible deity.

In order to objectively analyse and evaluate a claim, there has to be viable, testable evidence to analyse and evaluate. There is none for the above three listed scenarios/subjects.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
There are certain scenarios and subjects that can be utterly dismissed without the need for critical thinking because I say they are flat out wrong on their face..
Click to expand...
ftfy.

Anybody who can't come up with a reason to reject the flat earth hypothesis for example isn't thinking at all.
 
psion10 said:
ftfy.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't fix anything.

psion10 said:
Anybody who can't come up with a reason to reject the flat earth hypothesis for example isn't thinking at all.
Click to expand...

Same goes for "traditional" Creationism and YEC. They do not deserve any consideration (there's no evidence to consider). If you want them taught in religious whackadoodle class, go ahead, but they should not be taught in science class, because they are NOT science, they are fantasy, and fairytale make-believe.
 
smartcooky said:
No, you didn't fix anything.
Click to expand...
So who says it then?

smartcooky said:
Same goes for "traditional" Creationism and YEC.
Click to expand...
You obviously didn't read the post where I said that these are not issues that can be dealt with using the scientific method.

It is hardly surprising. You would rather deal with strawman arguments than anything I am actually posting about.
 
Stacyhs said:
That's exactly what he's doing.
Click to expand...
You can say "you don't understand me" or even "you are lying about what I said" but the fact remains that nobody is saying that critical thinking* has a place in the science class room.

* By "critical thinking" I don't mean the new definition about it meaning "YEC" or any other type of "ID". Critical thinking used to be about analyzing the evidence that is used to form a conclusion and not just automatically believing that something is true simply because somebody says "science says so".
 
kookbreaker said:
I assume you are basing this off Stacys post number 7 and your post #10.

All I am gonna say is you got it wrong, way wrong. And you are giving much undeserving faith to a totally bad faith argument.
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
You can say "you don't understand me" or even "you are lying about what I said" but the fact remains that nobody is saying that critical thinking* has a place in the science class room.

* By "critical thinking" I don't mean the new definition about it meaning "YEC" or any other type of "ID". Critical thinking used to be about analyzing the evidence that is used to form a conclusion and not just automatically believing that something is true simply because somebody says "science says so".
Click to expand...

See the above.
 
psionl0 said:
You can say "you don't understand me" or even "you are lying about what I said" but the fact remains that nobody is saying that critical thinking* has a place in the science class room.

* By "critical thinking" I don't mean the new definition about it meaning "YEC" or any other type of "ID". Critical thinking used to be about analyzing the evidence that is used to form a conclusion and not just automatically believing that something is true simply because somebody says "science says so".
Click to expand...

You seem to be talking about college and university level education not under 16 schooling. For your view of up to 16 year old education it would mean a huge overhaul of all education. For example you appear to be against teaching by rote under 16s in a math class that 2+2=4, that 12x12=144, or in History that Obama became a president of the USA in 2009, or in geography that the North Pole is rather chilly.

Or is your only objection to teaching about evolution in the same way to under 16s?
 
Darat said:
You seem to be talking about college and university level education not under 16 schooling. For your view of up to 16 year old education it would mean a huge overhaul of all education. For example you appear to be against teaching by rote under 16s in a math class that 2+2=4, that 12x12=144, or in History that Obama became a president of the USA in 2009, or in geography that the North Pole is rather chilly.
Click to expand...
When is the last time you saw the inside of a class room? (How old are you?) Do you really think that in this century kids are expected to recite tables?
 
psionl0 said:
Critical thinking used to be about analyzing the evidence that is used to form a conclusion...
Click to expand...

You see, this is the part you actually do understand - that evidence is required before there can be any analysis or evaluation.

psionl0 said:
... and not just automatically believing that something is true simply because somebody says "science says so".
Click to expand...

And this is the part you still don't get.

Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that

Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "a 2000 year old book written by itinerant goat-herders says so"
.
.
 
smartcooky said:
And this is the part you still don't get.
Click to expand...
No, YOU are the one who refuses to get it.

No matter how often or how vehemently I point out that science can say nothing about religious matters, you still insist on acting as if I am saying the complete opposite.
 
psionl0 said:
Maybe the GOP uses "We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced" as a euphemism for teaching creationism instead of evolution but you didn't state that in your post. I can only respond to what you actually .
Click to expand...

Please, please stop pretending you didn’t know what the GOP wants to do with biology classes. It makes Sea Lioning look honest.
 
psionl0 said:
No, YOU are the one who refuses to get it.

No matter how often or how vehemently I point out that science can say nothing about religious matters, you still insist on acting as if I am saying the complete opposite.
Click to expand...

Because that is not what you are saying. You have been pretending that the GOPs efforts to shove religion into the science classroom is actually some kind of good faith effort to raise other legitimate evidenced theories. You accused those against this kind of indoctrination of being the equivalent of heresy hunting religious fanatics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom