Split Thread Should creationism be taught as Science?

[smartcooky]

But the argument that if we allow an examination of Genesis then we need to examine every creation myth in every other major religion, that is a perfectly cromulent argument. One that you studiously ignore, even as you go on fixating on Genesis alone, for some reason.

I think examining only the biblical creation myth would be deeply offensive for the parents of Hindu, and Muslim kids. I'm an Atheist, and I find the idea both offensive and abhorrent.

 

[psionl0]

But the argument that if we allow an examination of Genesis then we need to examine every creation myth in every other major religion, that is a perfectly cromulent argument. One that you studiously ignore, even as you go on fixating on Genesis alone, for some reason.

In his book "Straight and Crooked Thinking", Robert H Thouless listed "extension of one's proposition" (AKA "strawman") as one of the faulty arguments. It works like this:

A proponent argues that some X's are Y's. The opponent demonstrates that not all X's are Y's. If the proponent reasserts his original position then an opponent may say "But you ought logically to say that all Xs are Y if you think some Xs are Y" which is just sophistry.

If somebody were to argue that "less money should be spent on welfare" does that mean that they ought logically argue that "NO money should be spent on welfare"?

I have given an argument for possibly considering Genesis in a science class which does not apply to any of these other silly myths and I refuse to be goaded into defending a different argument.

 

[jimbob]

In his book "Straight and Crooked Thinking", Robert H Thouless listed "extension of one's proposition" (AKA "strawman") as one of the faulty arguments. It works like this:

A proponent argues that some X's are Y's. The opponent demonstrates that not all X's are Y's. If the proponent reasserts his original position then an opponent may say "But you ought logically to say that all Xs are Y if you think some Xs are Y" which is just sophistry.

If somebody were to argue that "less money should be spent on welfare" does that mean that they ought logically argue that "NO money should be spent on welfare"?

I have given an argument for possibly considering Genesis in a science class which does not apply to any of these other silly myths and I refuse to be goaded into defending a different argument.

It's only familiarity thatakes one creation myth less silly in your eyes than another.

An omnipotent, omniscient creator made the world in 6 days apart from female humans, so later made the single man go to sleep and took a rib from the man to make a woman. A talking snake with legs persuaded her to eat a particular fruit, which she didn't know was wrong because she hadn't eaten the fruit, she then persuaded her husband to do the same, and the creator punished them for doing something that the couldn't have known was wrong? So they were made mortal and the snake (and presumably all other snakes, after all the LORD had created all animals but only one smake had talked to Eve) list its legs?



Seems pretty silly to me

ETA did I mention that after eating from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they were ashamed of being naked so hid, and the omniscient creator had to look for them and that is how this deity knew they had eaten the fruit.

 

[Chanakya]

In his book "Straight and Crooked Thinking", Robert H Thouless listed "extension of one's proposition" (AKA "strawman") as one of the faulty arguments. It works like this:

A proponent argues that some X's are Y's. The opponent demonstrates that not all X's are Y's. If the proponent reasserts his original position then an opponent may say "But you ought logically to say that all Xs are Y if you think some Xs are Y" which is just sophistry.

If somebody were to argue that "less money should be spent on welfare" does that mean that they ought logically argue that "NO money should be spent on welfare"?

I have given an argument for possibly considering Genesis in a science class which does not apply to any of these other silly myths and I refuse to be goaded into defending a different argument.

Lovely. So that --- and no, to so extend your argument is no strawman, I've given you more than ample chance to state your position re. others' myths in your words, fully --- in your view, the creation myths of other religions are "silly" in a way your Genesis isn't; and/or (note the "slash or") the proposal of discussion of creation myths from other religions in science class is " silly" in a way it isn't for Abrahamic myths, specifically Genesis.

Thank you for removing all reasonable doubt about where you're coming from. Cheers.

 

[sphenisc]

It's only familiarity thatakes one creation myth less silly in your eyes than another.

An omnipotent, omniscient creator made the world in 6 days apart from female humans, so later made the single man go to sleep and took a rib from the man to make a woman. A talking snake with legs persuaded her to eat a particular fruit, which she didn't know was wrong because she hadn't eaten the fruit, she then persuaded her husband to do the same, and the creator punished them for doing something that the couldn't have known was wrong? So they were made mortal and the snake (and presumably all other snakes, after all the LORD had created all animals but only one smake had talked to Eve) list its legs?



Seems pretty silly to me

ETA did I mention that after eating from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they were ashamed of being naked so hid, and the omniscient creator had to look for them and that is how this deity knew they had eaten the fruit.

Are you unfamiliar with the Genesis myth?

 

[psionl0]

It's only familiarity thatakes one creation myth less silly in your eyes than another.

An omnipotent, omniscient creator made the world in 6 days apart from female humans, so later made the single man go to sleep and took a rib from the man to make a woman. A talking snake with legs persuaded her to eat a particular fruit, which she didn't know was wrong because she hadn't eaten the fruit, she then persuaded her husband to do the same, and the creator punished them for doing something that the couldn't have known was wrong? So they were made mortal and the snake (and presumably all other snakes, after all the LORD had created all animals but only one smake had talked to Eve) list its legs?



Seems pretty silly to me
ETA did I mention that after eating from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they were ashamed of being naked so hid, and the omniscient creator had to look for them and that is how this deity knew they had eaten the fruit.

I didn't make any argument about Genesis vs other myths based on its relative silliness. You are free to do so but it does not rebut anything I have posted.

 

[Darat]

I think examining only the biblical creation myth would be deeply offensive for the parents of Hindu, and Muslim kids. I'm an Atheist, and I find the idea both offensive and abhorrent.

It goes beyond that - Judaism for example but even between Christian denominations there are different interpretations. PsioI0 is seemingly operating on the false assumption that all self labelled Christians believe the same things.

 

[smartcooky]

Lovely. So that --- and no, to so extend your argument is no strawman, I've given you more than ample chance to state your position re. others' myths in your words, fully --- in your view, the creation myths of other religions are "silly" in a way your Genesis isn't; and/or (note the "slash or") the proposal of discussion of creation myths from other religions in science class is " silly" in a way it isn't for Abrahamic myths, specifically Genesis.

Thank you for removing all reasonable doubt about where you're coming from. Cheers.

Yeah it is, its psionl0's own personal, unique definition... pStrawman -

 

[smartcooky]

It goes beyond that - Judaism for example but even between Christian denominations there are different interpretations. PsioI0 is seemingly operating on the false assumption that all self labelled Christians believe the same things.

Even a cursory glance at 1960s to 1990's Northern Ireland should set him straight!!

 

[psionl0]

It goes beyond that - Judaism for example but even between Christian denominations there are different interpretations. PsioI0 is seemingly operating on the false assumption that all self labelled Christians believe the same things.

If your argument is that most believers consider Genesis to be allegorical then that is a good reason to keep it out of science classes since it could mean anything.

Of course, you would have to be able to demonstrate that very few people take Genesis literally.

 

[psionl0]

--- and no, to so extend your argument is no strawman,

You are claiming that if somebody argues for a reduction in welfare then it is no strawman to argue against NO welfare.

 

[Chanakya]

It's only familiarity thatakes one creation myth less silly in your eyes than another.

An omnipotent, omniscient creator made the world in 6 days apart from female humans, so later made the single man go to sleep and took a rib from the man to make a woman. A talking snake with legs persuaded her to eat a particular fruit, which she didn't know was wrong because she hadn't eaten the fruit, she then persuaded her husband to do the same, and the creator punished them for doing something that the couldn't have known was wrong? So they were made mortal and the snake (and presumably all other snakes, after all the LORD had created all animals but only one smake had talked to Eve) list its legs?



Seems pretty silly to me

ETA did I mention that after eating from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they were ashamed of being naked so hid, and the omniscient creator had to look for them and that is how this deity knew they had eaten the fruit.

Are you unfamiliar with the Genesis myth?

Fair point.

No doubt that's exactly what jimbob meant, but it might be good to make it fully clear, in so many words: It isn't as if familiarity with some cock-eyed myth necessarily makes it seem less silly. It is familiarity, coupled with bigotry, and/or a mind utterly brainwashed by religious indoctrination, and/or an incapacity to think straight (in this particular case), that makes one (particular) religious creation myth appear less silly than (others).

 

[jimbob]

If your argument is that most believers consider Genesis to be allegorical then that is a good reason to keep it out of science classes since it could mean anything.

Of course, you would have to be able to demonstrate that very few people take Genesis literally.

No, you have to demonstrate why you think Genesis is somehow less silly than "made up religions" (which is all of them).

Hundreds of millions of people believe that a lotus flower grew from Lord Vishnu’s navel with Brahma sitting on it. Brahma separated the flower into three parts - the heavens, the Earth and the sky and also that out of loneliness, Brahma split himself into two to create a male and a female. From this male and female all beings were created.


For example

 

[IanS]

I suspect that some confirmation bias is coming up.


That is simply not true. I have consistently maintained the position that students should understand the "why" and not just the "what" in science (even if the words are not exactly the same). I have not limited that stance to just religion.

The problem is that every response to what I have posted is all about religion (hardly surprising considering the titles given to this thread).

Students in science probably understand the "why" far better than students in any other subject or any school lessons. That's the fundemental nature of science ... it's a subject where you have to think logically & objectively about everything.

 

[psionl0]

No, you have to demonstrate why you think Genesis is somehow less silly than "made up religions" (which is all of them).

No I don't. I am entitled to consider Genesis solely on whether it is widely believed or not.

 

[Chanakya]

Yeah it is, its psionl0's own personal, unique definition... pStrawman -

I've found the guy being piled on in thread after thread after thread; and I've tried myself, for the longest possible time, as you'll find if you read our exchanges in this thread, to keep extending the benefit of the doubt. After that latest exchange, and like I said, all reasonable doubt is now removed.

 

[Chanakya]

You are claiming that if somebody argues for a reduction in welfare then it is no strawman to argue against NO welfare.

And that is what a strawman actually looks like.



eta: The kind of sparring you revel in, I've no appetite for. I've asked you maybe twenty times (hyperbole --- in actual fact probably three or four or five times) about, or at least introduced the argument concerning, other religious creation myths. You refuse to engage with that line of argument, either by ignoring it altogether, or else by dismissing it, as here, without actually discussing why; and then go on soon after to repeating your one-point focus about discussing Genesis in science class. No, it isn't whataboutery to introduce other religious myths into the argument, because it is part and parcel of the argument (or at least, one important argument) about why or why not, as far as your specific proposal. You are welcome, even now, to clarify your position in your own words; and obviously you are perfectly free not to, if that is what you wish. But no, after having given you every possible chance to explain yourself, no, it is perfectly reasonable to make this inference --- it's actually inference, not even an "extension" really --- about where it is you're coming from.

That's fine. You have the right to hold whatever opinions you want. No matter how utterly silly, and/or closed-minded, and/or bigoted it appears to me, and no matter how disingenuous your refusal to own up to it appears in my mind. There is no reason why that should be of concern to you, at least not necessarily. (And if it is, then you're welcome to try to clarify yourself, even now. Again, you don't actually have to.)

 

[psionl0]

And that is what a strawman actually looks like.

You are the one who argued that extending a proposition is not a strawman.

I've asked you maybe twenty times (hyperbole --- in actual fact probably three or four or five times) about, or at least introduced the argument concerning, other religious creation myths.

And I have explained almost as many times why we don't need to give other myths the same consideration as Genesis. You just simply refuse to read the reasons. (Hint: it's got nothing to do with silliness).

 

[jimbob]

You are the one who argued that extending a proposition is not a strawman.


And I have explained almost as many times why we don't need to give other myths the same consideration as Genesis. You just simply refuse to read the reasons. (Hint: it's got nothing to do with silliness).

What about the Hindu myth which I mentioned? It's quite possible that more people believe that is literally true than Christians believe Genesis is literally true.

What is the threshold? And what has that to do with science?

Yes I think the major myths should be taught in school as part of the religious studies curriculum so people can learn what many of their fellow citizens believe, but it's nothing to do with science.

 

[jimbob]

No, you have to demonstrate why you think Genesis is somehow less silly than "made up religions" (which is all of them).

No I don't. I am entitled to consider Genesis solely on whether it is widely believed or not.

You missed out the second paragraph

No, you have to demonstrate why you think Genesis is somehow less silly than "made up religions" (which is all of them).

Hundreds of millions of people believe that a lotus flower grew from Lord Vishnu’s navel with Brahma sitting on it. Brahma separated the flower into three parts - the heavens, the Earth and the sky and also that out of loneliness, Brahma split himself into two to create a male and a female. From this male and female all beings were created.


For example

Teach the controversy

Were humans made from clay, or were they made from Lord Brahma splitting himself in twain out of loneliness?