Creationist schools and universities

[HeartenedHeart]

What if they taught about the finding of the ark (of Noah) upon the Mt's of Ararat, with a satellite image included, along with actual fragments tested in lab:

What if they taught about other subjects in geology, archeology and paleontology that rarely get a mention:

 

[Subduction Zone]

What if they taught about the finding of the ark (of Noah) upon the Mt's of Ararat, with a satellite image included, along with actual fragments tested in lab:

What if they taught about other subjects in geology, archeology and paleontology that rarely get a mention:

You do realize that those are frauds, don't you?

 

[Jimmy D]

What if they taught about other subjects in geology, archeology and paleontology that rarely get a mention:

What if they taught about other subjects in geology, archeology and paleontology that rarely get a mention:

We've already got youtube for pseudoscience, no need to teach it in schools.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Of course one can not have theocratic courses in nations that have freedom of religion. One needs something much stronger than one's personal belief in a holy book.

It is quite obvious that lack of creationism is wrecking the USA. You cannot have a country with a constitution and freedom of opinion, when the citizens are in doubt whether free will exists at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is quite obvious that lack of creationism is wrecking the USA. You cannot have a country with a constitution and freedom of opinion, when the citizens are in doubt whether free will exists at all.

This once again appears to be quite the non sequitur. Since you cannot seem to support your beliefs about free will why should anyone believe in it?

By the way, I do believe that all of the most advanced countries have freedom of religion and freedom of opinion as well. Why would you oppose those? Is that the only way you could get people to agree with you?

 

[Brightmoon]

You seem to believe that the Bible's creation accounts are lies. How does that influence the way you read the rest of the Bible. If humanity didn't fall away from God, why did we need a Savior.

. I simply believe that they are stories . Period ! The Creation stories don’t have much to do with natural phenomena and that’s been known for over 300 years now. We discovered this gradually over a long time . Astronomical research refuted a flat earth and a geocentric universe. Geological research refuted a global flood and a short time frame. Biological research ,just using gross anatomy , information from breeders, and the then sparse fossil record , refuted separate creation 150 years ago! No one should believe pseudoscience nonsense because acting as if it’s true can be harmful. The current measles epidemic should point that out . People accepted a pseudoscience belief and it’s harming them. Creationism as reality is harmful especially the pseudoscience belief in separate creation simply because it undercuts medical research.

 

[Brightmoon]

Interesting how a Christian like you chooses to place anything before God's inspired word. What you seem to lack Brighty is that if science says one thing and God's Truth says another, God wins.

First off , biblical inerrancy is a myth . Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the history of the bible knows that’s nonsense. Since scientists report on what Nature says about itself and we use that for our technology, I’m more inclined to trust science. If they get it wrong then nature (aka God’s Creation) will let us know that it’s wrong! Science as a field doesn’t have an egotistical bent on accepting pseudoscience like creationists do. Creationists, like an toddler throwing a tantrum, simply won’t admit that they’re wrong . And yeah ,creationists insistence on these fantasies does look like tantrum throwing to anyone who is scientifically literate. “NO! NO NO NO NO NO” with no reasoning behind it

 

[Speedwell]

Only number one would possibly be taught in creationism class, but arguably only creatio ex nihilo is correct.
What would be taught in creationism class:

1. what is a choice?
2. what is an opinion?
3. what is a fact?
4. which words belong in the category of matters of opinion, and which words belong in the category of matters of fact.

The way you set up creationism is theocratic. It is not respecting of freedom of opinion.

All of that is taught as part of critical thinking in the better sort of high school already. What has it to do with indoctrinating students to accept the literal inerrancy of Genesis? Indeed, teaching critical thinking skills is generally objected to by creationists because they understand that a person capable of critical thinking will generally reject creationism.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

First off , biblical inerrancy is a myth . Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the history of the bible knows that’s nonsense. Since scientists report on what Nature says about itself and we use that for our technology, I’m more inclined to trust science. If they get it wrong then nature (aka God’s Creation) will let us know that it’s wrong! Science as a field doesn’t have an egotistical bent on accepting pseudoscience like creationists do. Creationists, like an toddler throwing a tantrum, simply won’t admit that they’re wrong . And yeah ,creationists insistence on these fantasies does look like tantrum throwing to anyone who is scientifically literate. “NO! NO NO NO NO NO” with no reasoning behind it

An interesting spin on things, which I do not share. As for my family and I, we'll keep serving God.

 

[Strathos]

The Bible isn't 'wrong'. It just uses metaphor, allegory, and poetic language. People back then didn't draw the same distinction that we do now between literal history and mythology. Insisting that every word in the Bible is 100% literal just proves you don't really understand the messages it is trying to convey.

 

[A Realist]

We should totally start creationist schools and universities.

There are already many of those, mostly run by evangelical/fundamental religious institutions and churches.
I would venture to say that the great majority of those are unaccredited because they will not or cannot follow the accreditation guidelines.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

All of that is taught as part of critical thinking in the better sort of high school already. What has it to do with indoctrinating students to accept the literal inerrancy of Genesis? Indeed, teaching critical thinking skills is generally objected to by creationists because they understand that a person capable of critical thinking will generally reject creationism.

No it isn't taught anywhere at all. Everybody hates subjective opinion, including Christians. This is really what is so bad about humanity in general, the way everybody beats up on the concept of subjective opinion, and wants to have everything be factual.

Subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. As you can see in the OP, category 1. Subjectivity is only taught implicitly, in that the existence of God and the soul is regarded as a matter of faith. Also choosing, the mechanism of creation, is nowhere taught about. They are implicit in traditional creationism, but not explicitly taught.

 

[Speedwell]

No it isn't taught anywhere at all. Everybody hates subjective opinion, including Christians. This is really what is so bad about humanity in general, the way everybody beats up on the concept of subjective opinion, and wants to have everything be factual.

Subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept. As you can see in the OP, category 1. Subjectivity is only taught implicitly, in that the existence of God and the soul is regarded as a matter of faith. Also choosing, the mechanism of creation, is nowhere taught about. They are implicit in traditional creationism, but not explicitly taught.

I still don't see how subjectivity is a creationist concept. Creationism is based on the creation stories of Genesis being 100% accurate factual history--and if they are not, creationists insist the Christian faith would be untenable. It is creationists who hate subjective opinion and want to have everything be factual.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

I still don't see how subjectivity is a creationist concept. Creationism is based on the creation stories of Genesis being 100% accurate factual history--and if they are not, creationists insist the Christian faith would be untenable. It is creationists who hate subjective opinion and want to have everything be factual.

It's explained in the OP.

It's true that very many Christians also hate subjective opinion, and want everything to be factual. But there is still this emphasis on faith in Christianity, and the truth is subjective opinion is an inherently creationist concept.

Basically everybody is beating up on the concept of subjective opinion. This is why I am a total pessimist about everything. Think about it, emotional maturity is never going to be achieved very well without understanding of subjectivity. It is a miracle societies still function.

 

[AV1611VET]

I never said that you did.

I'm sticking up for those you had in mind, when you said:

People back then didn't draw the same distinction that we do now between literal history and mythology.

I know it makes us look superior when we belittle the "ignorance" of others, but I submit if you make it into a quotient (what they knew / what was available to know), the ignorance disappears.

Was Paul Morphy ignorant?

 

[Strathos]

I'm sticking up for those you had in mind, when you said:
I know it makes us look superior when we belittle the "ignorance" of others, but I submit if you make it into a quotient (what they knew / what was available to know), the ignorance disappears.

Was Paul Morphy ignorant?

I'm not saying they were ignorant, just that they had a different philosophical approach to knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sticking up for those you had in mind, when you said:
I know it makes us look superior when we belittle the "ignorance" of others, but I submit if you make it into a quotient (what they knew / what was available to know), the ignorance disappears.

Was Paul Morphy ignorant?

Ignorance is almost always about ignorance of some particular topic. So was Morphy ignorant of certain matters, especially compared to the knowledge that we have today? Of course he was. Were the writers of the Old Testament ignorant about the scientific facts of the world that they lived in? Without a doubt. They all have a good excuse for their ignorance. It was not due to laziness or a mental defect. It was due to the fact that the knowledge had not been developed yet. Those people have an excuse for their ignorance. Modern day creationists have no excuse when it comes to their religious based beliefs.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Thread cleaned due to flaming and goading.
Please stick to addressing the content of the post rather than the poster.
Please refrain from using inflammatory labels when referring to the beliefs of the opposing viewpoint.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Ignorance is almost always about ignorance of some particular topic. So was Morphy ignorant of certain matters, especially compared to the knowledge that we have today? Of course he was. Were the writers of the Old Testament ignorant about the scientific facts of the world that they lived in? Without a doubt. They all have a good excuse for their ignorance. It was not due to laziness or a mental defect. It was due to the fact that the knowledge had not been developed yet. Those people have an excuse for their ignorance. Modern day creationists have no excuse when it comes to their religious based beliefs.

That's an accusation modernday creationists are lazy and ignorant.

Creationists have a better understanding than most about how things are chosen in the universe. Creationists have a better understanding of subjectivity, which is an inherently creationist concept.

The fact is science has focused on cause and effect understanding, things being forced, because it was useful for developing technology. But it made for a very skewed, and very bizarre understanding of the universe. You cannot be a scientist and not be a creationist.

 

[Brightmoon]

That's an accusation modernday creationists are lazy and ignorant.

Creationists have a better understanding than most about how things are chosen in the universe. Creationists have a better understanding of subjectivity, which is an inherently creationist concept.

The fact is science has focused on cause and effect understanding, things being forced, because it was useful for developing technology. But it made for a very skewed, and very bizarre understanding of the universe. You cannot be a scientist and not be a creationist.

modern day creationists are wilfully ignorant. They chose to not be literate in the sciences . The skewed and bizarre universe is one that creationists live in as it’s as incoherent as a Dali painting