Really Nice De-Conversion Story (Catholic To Atheist)

[elliotfc]

I wouldn't agree that science opposes Christanity, but I would agree that Christianity often opposes science. It's perfectly possible to believe that that scientific findings about the age of the Earth, the universe, and the origin of the human race are all valid, and to reconcile that with a belief in a deity. It's just not possible to reconcile a very litteral interpretation of the bible, writen by ignorant nomads thousands of years ago, with the latest issue of Nature.

Agreed.

If many Christian organizations (The Church of Later Day Saints, Fundamentalists of all stripes, the Catholic Church) would stop deliberately lying about science, and the nature of reality, it would cause fewer members of the faith to recect it when they learn that two plus two does not equal five.

Lying about science. I dunno. Science is what it is. Scientific theories and ever scientific data are just human constructs, the nature of reality is not beholden to our ways of thinking about them. They weren't in Newton's time, and they aren't in Einstein's time.

If you want to relate this to 2+2=5, geh! Geh I say! If you were correct, that this was 2+2=5 kinda stuff, this would be a non-issue.

-Elliot

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If you want to relate this to 2+2=5, geh! Geh I say! If you were correct, that this was 2+2=5 kinda stuff, this would be a non-issue.

-Elliot

Adam's rib. 6000 year oldearth. Evolution is "just a theory" Lies about condoms in faith based abstainence only sex ed...

The Catholic Church is only guilty of the later, to be fair.

 

[elliotfc]

Adam's rib. 6000 year oldearth. Evolution is "just a theory" Lies about condoms in faith based abstainence only sex ed...

The Catholic Church is only guilty of the later, to be fair.

And none of it is 2+2=5. We can do the math. We can't travel back in time.

-Elliot

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And none of it is 2+2=5. We can do the math. We can't travel back in time.

-Elliot

Claiming that the earth is only 6000 years old is exactly as ridiculous as claiming 2+2=5.

 

[ceo_esq]

Claiming that the earth is only 6000 years old is exactly as ridiculous as claiming 2+2=5.

Hate to split hairs, but that's not exactly true. The falsity of the second is inferred inductively, and is an a posteriori proposition, whereas the a priori falsity of the second can be deduced. Only the second kind of reasoning guarantees a correct conclusion, so it's substantially more ridiculous to claim that 2+2=5.

 

[ceo_esq]

Claiming that the earth is only 6000 years old is exactly as ridiculous as claiming 2+2=5.

Hate to split hairs, but that's not exactly true. The falsity (as we suppose) of the second is inferred inductively, and is an a posteriori proposition, whereas the a priori falsity of the second can be deduced. Only the second kind of reasoning guarantees a correct conclusion, so it's substantially more ridiculous to claim that 2+2=5. Elliotfc's point that the age of the earth, etc., is "not 2+2=5 stuff" is well taken.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Hate to split hairs, but that's not exactly true. The falsity (as we suppose) of the second is inferred inductively, and is an a posteriori proposition, whereas the a priori falsity of the second can be deduced. Only the second kind of reasoning guarantees a correct conclusion, so it's substantially more ridiculous to claim that 2+2=5. Elliotfc's point that the age of the earth, etc., is "not 2+2=5 stuff" is well taken.

ceo, claiming that the earth is merely 6000 years old spits on all of physics, chemistry, biology, paleontology, genetics, astronomy and geology. It's patentedly absurd, and teaching is detrimental to the students.

 

[ceo_esq]

ceo, claiming that the earth is merely 6000 years old spits on all of physics, chemistry, biology, paleontology, genetics, astronomy and geology. It's patentedly absurd, and teaching is detrimental to the students.

Fine. I wouldn't want to teach them that inductive reasoning yields exactly the same kinds of results as deductive reasoning, though, either.

Have any studies been done, I wonder, on exactly how, by what measure, and through what mechanism, these teachings are detrimental to individual students?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Have any studies been done, I wonder, on exactly how, by what measure, and through what mechanism, these teachings are detrimental to individual students?

Case studies on individual students? No. Statistical analysies comparing backwwards states like Tennessee and Kansas with other states? Yes.

 

[ceo_esq]

Case studies on individual students? No. Statistical analysies comparing backwwards states like Tennessee and Kansas with other states? Yes.

Comparing what? The economic/psychological/etc. well-being of students who were exposed to creationism in school to the well-being of students who were not (after controlling for all other factors)?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Comparing what? The economic/psychological/etc. well-being of students who were exposed to creationism in school to the well-being of students who were not (after controlling for all other factors)?

No, the academic achievement, rate of college entry, and performance on standardized tests.

 

[MrFrankZito]

Claiming that the earth is only 6000 years old is exactly as ridiculous as claiming 2+2=5.

I completely agree. Young-Earthers have NO case whatsoever. Their position is a fiction.

 

[Jimbo07]

You procalim undemonstrable when you can't prove what the rates were a million years ago. You can't. You really, really can't.

I'm not claiming to know what the rates were at any particular point in time. I'm just saying that I can identify an assumption when I see one.

-Elliot

E: before we get into a throw-down regarding changing decay constants, values of c, etc. please summarize your angle for me. Are you simply trying to demonstrate that science, like every other mode of human thought, can only build models of the universe? I agree with this.

Or are you using this as a dodge to defend a 6000 yr old Earth?

 

[ceo_esq]

No, the academic achievement, rate of college entry, and performance on standardized tests.

Sure, but are you really suggesting that data on academic achievement, rate of college entry, and performance on standardized tests of students in Kansas and Tennessee (your examples) versus other states is at all illuminating about whether teaching creationism is detrimental to students? Has exposure to creationism even been isolated as an indicator in any studies, so far as you are aware?

I guess what I'm basically wondering is whether the proposition that teaching creationism to students is detrimental to them in some concrete way (such as any of the ways you mentioned above) has proceeded past the stage of a hypothesis. (Statistical data that does not control adequately is obviously not going to corroborate it in any meaningful fashion.)

 

[elliotfc]

Claiming that the earth is only 6000 years old is exactly as ridiculous as claiming 2+2=5.

I disagree with your opinion! I think many atheists disagree as well. Many atheists have carefully considered the 6000 year old theory. Once you carefully consider something, you elevate it beyond ridiculous. Ridiculous things aren't worthy of careful consideration.

Of course on a personal level, as your opinion, I accept that you find the two concepts equally ridiculous.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

ceo, claiming that the earth is merely 6000 years old spits on all of physics, chemistry, biology, paleontology, genetics, astronomy and geology. It's patentedly absurd, and teaching is detrimental to the students.

You've taken a step here...I agree that the 6000 year old earth theory ought not be taught in science classes. But I would suggest that doing so would *not be ridiculous* Oh My God I sound like Bill O'Reilly.

It would be a terrific exercise in those sciences to apply them to the 6000 year old earth theory, wouldn't it? Would you be against science classes informing students why the 6000 year old theory is refuted by scientists?

I understand why the earth is thought to be a hell of a lot older. I still don't think the 6000 year earth theory is ridiculous. There are reasons why those people think their number is correct. They aren't scientific reasons. People can have a belief system not completely formed by science and they're just being people. They're not being ridiculous. Who says that everyone has to think like you, in the way that you think? You're being extremely judgmental, and on some level, I find your judgment pretty commensurate to others who damn people to hell.

Also, all of the sciences *on their own* do not put the lie to the 6000 year old theory. In practice, they suggest the earth is a hell of a lot older.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

No, the academic achievement, rate of college entry, and performance on standardized tests.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

The above website has a hell of a lot of data...I don't feel like sorting it out right now. It appears to be moderately user friendly...

There is, unforunately, a *type* of student who doesn't academically achieve...doesn't go to college...drops out of high school...doesn't perform well on standardized tests...

Anyone who thinks this *type* of student is primarily the way they are because of Creationism...well, I won't call you ridiculous. You pick the word.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

E: before we get into a throw-down regarding changing decay constants, values of c, etc. please summarize your angle for me. Are you simply trying to demonstrate that science, like every other mode of human thought, can only build models of the universe? I agree with this.

Yes.

Or are you using this as a dodge to defend a 6000 yr old Earth?

Sort of. I don't "believe" or "accept" a 6000 yr old Earth. Why not defend it? Or, why not understand people who accept the theory instead of labeling them ridiculous or anti-science or whatever?

In my opinion, if *SCIENCE*! could establish a curricular dialogue with the theory...they'd do a hell of a lot more to "debunk" it than they are doing now. Think about it. Get a trained high school teacher to teach the theory, compare it to science, and guess what? What do you think the conclusions would be? And if the trained high school teacher is *forced* to give a happy take on Creationism, that would be the worst possible PR the creationist crowd could possibly get, and the students would be *completely* aware that they were being force fed material. Kids aren't as stupid as you think (yes, even the kids in Tennessee and Utah). Keeping theories away from them can have the complete opposite effect. Or not.

I am more opposed to Creationism being taught in schools than the average bear, and I am sympathetic to the 6000 year old earth theory!

-Elliot

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Sure, but are you really suggesting that data on academic achievement, rate of college entry, and performance on standardized tests of students in Kansas and Tennessee (your examples) versus other states is at all illuminating about whether teaching creationism is detrimental to students?

Yes, as those students can easily be compared to students of the same socio-ecominic status in other states wit different curriculum. A correlation can be found, and one can infer a causation, but causation isn't measured by statistics.

 

[elliotfc]

Let me make a concession, that really isn't a concession, since I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth.

If it wasn't for the Bible, it is very unlikely that very many people would believe that the earth was 6000 years old. Meaning, you wouldn't derive that number any way except by using the Bible as your unit of measurement.

Now...let's *assume* that the Earth was, in fact, 6000 years old. Would the Bible be a scientific unit of measurement? No. Just a unit of measurement. Would the Bible be scientific evidence? No. Just evidence. I don't expect any scientific person to use the Bible as either a scientific unit of measurement, or scientific evidence. Could a scientific type of person *decide* to use the Bible as such things? Sure. It's a huge jump, and any conclusions that they, uh, conclude, would have to be understood and explained with the knowledge that the Bible was used in such a way.

-Elliot