Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

pitabread said:

I never said there were current laws.

If you-read the OP, I stated this:

Historically there have been government led initiatives to suppress scientific teaching contradicting creationist beliefs. This includes laws in the United States suppressing the teaching of evolution, as well as similar laws and initiatives in other countries.
​

I was pointing to the historical context of attempts to suppress the teaching of evolution.

Click to expand...

There were perhaps 2 examples in which teaching evolution was suppressed. No examples within the last 60 years. Every other example was blatant suppression of intelligent design. Therefore, the only conclusion from this thread is that secularism is suppressing creationism, not the other way around. Thus, I assert that it is actually secular evolutionists who are "anti-intellectualism" in the manner in which they are intolerant of any thoughts, ideas, or evidence that disagree with their assumptions. Heaven forbid any evidence actually points to a god other than the one they declared themselves to be.

Oompa Loompa said:

There were perhaps 2 examples in which evolutions was suppressed. No examples within the last 60 years. Every other example was blatant suppression of intelligent design. Therefore, the only conclusion from this thread is that secularism is suppressing creationism, not the other way around. Thus, I assert that it is actually secular evolutionists who are "anti-intellectualism" in the manner in which they are intolerant of any thoughts, ideas, or evidence that disagree with their assumptions.

Click to expand...

This is actually an interesting point, as there is absolutely hostility towards thought that does not accord with modern reductive thinking from those who push evolution. How many scientists completely slander philosophical inquiry because it is incapable of reaching any sort of conclusion and instead view speculative philosophy as sophistry? Why are physicalist philosophies given special pass in requiring justification from first principles, while every other view point is expected to defend itself within the realm of physicalist premises? How is that NOT anti-intellectual suppression of thought?

thoughts?....

Thus far, I'm in a minority of one on this thread.

I don't think Creationism is even slightly anti-intellectual(as evidenced by the mountains of posts in this sub-forum), in fact I think it is a direct product of intellectualism(regrettably). I think that blocking the teaching of evolution in schools is anti-intellectual, but then again, what tha heck was this???...



although at least there were balloons and an attractive model.

apogee said:

... and an attractive model.

Click to expand...

On the outside.

AV1611VET said:

On the outside.

Click to expand...

He isn't really my type, in any case

Fervent said:

This is actually an interesting point, as there is absolutely hostility towards thought that does not accord with modern reductive thinking from those who push evolution. How many scientists completely slander philosophical inquiry because it is incapable of reaching any sort of conclusion and instead view speculative philosophy as sophistry? Why are physicalist philosophies given special pass in requiring justification from first principles, while every other view point is expected to defend itself within the realm of physicalist premises? How is that NOT anti-intellectual suppression of thought?

Click to expand...

That's nice, no argument that alternative ideas should be discussed. Do you actually have or know of any ideas that have not already been discussed that ought to be? have you any evidence that would make them relevant for discussion?

Fervent said:

If, however, we mean to say that creationism denies using our faculties of reason, logical faculties, and argumentation then absolutely not

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

We simply take God's word as the final authority rather than human speculation.

Click to expand...

If God's word trumps "using our faculties of reason, logical faculties, and argumentation" then these two sentences are mutually exclusive.

OB

royal priest said:

The Constitution endorses religious belief. It's one of those inalienable rights which the Constitution recognizes as being endowed upon all men by their Creator.

Click to expand...

Except none of those phrases are in the Constitution (try the Dec. of Ind.).

The constitution does prohibit "religious tests" for office holders.

Fervent said:

This is actually an interesting point, as there is absolutely hostility towards thought that does not accord with modern reductive thinking from those who push evolution. How many scientists completely slander philosophical inquiry because it is incapable of reaching any sort of conclusion and instead view speculative philosophy as sophistry? Why are physicalist philosophies given special pass in requiring justification from first principles, while every other view point is expected to defend itself within the realm of physicalist premises? How is that NOT anti-intellectual suppression of thought?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. There are numerous examples of highly respectable and intelligent scientists in fields like microbiology and astronomy who were once atheists but could no longer deny the insurmountable evidence pointing to the divine. Of course, they were quickly exiled by the scientific and academic community as heretics by the priests of humanistic secularism.

Sidon said:

Let me give you an intellectual question to ask a evolutionary biologist, to find out if they have any common sense as well as an IQ, or if they are just pretending to possess both.

Ask them......"Why can't you prove that God does not exist"?

See, this can't be proven, it can only be argued.

This is the perfect test to discover the depth of their intellect, as well as their honesty....especially their honestly.

Click to expand...

The smart and honest ones will respond: "Which God?"

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

That's nice, no argument that alternative ideas should be discussed. Do you actually have or know of any ideas that have not already been discussed that ought to be? have you any evidence that would make them relevant for discussion?

Click to expand...

The question is not a matter of "ideas to discuss" so much as it is holding ideas to the same criteria for justification. Why is it appropriate for schools to endorse the notion that the universe is governed by irrational physical laws(thus excluding God's existence by fiat) not only preferentially but while silencing critical voices and alternatives?

apogee said:

He isn't really my type, in any case

Click to expand...

Er ... I don't know whether to or

Help me out here.

Occams Barber said:

If God's word trumps "using our faculties of reason, logical faculties, and argumentation" then these two sentences are mutually exclusive.

OB

Click to expand...

No, they're not. We must use our faculties of reason to expound on God's word and determine the scope of its meaning. We do not simply memorize and regurgitate, we turn it over and meditate on it and consider the scope and extent. What God's word trumps is our speculations that begin from ignorance. God has provided us with a foundation upon which to build knowledge, we do not get to substitute it with one of our choosing. Human theories, no matter how elaborate or sophisticated, are ultimately contingent on the strength of their assumptions. Begin with bad assumptions, you're going to get incorrect conclusions.

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

How many years since creationism was exposed to be inappropriate pedagologially?

Click to expand...

As in, keep God out of the classroom, or keep this ludicrous theory out of the classroom?

AV1611VET said:

Er ... I don't know whether to or

Help me out here.

Click to expand...

sorry, It was definitely an attempt at humor/humour.

Fervent said:

The question is not a matter of "ideas to discuss" so much as it is holding ideas to the same criteria for justification.

Click to expand...

While ignoring the constitutional requirement to separate state and religion? Are you some sort of a revolutionary?

Fervent said:

Why is it appropriate for schools to endorse the notion that the universe is governed by irrational physical laws

Click to expand...

How do you know the laws are irrational? Do you think we should tell children that gravity isn't real?

Fervent said:

not only preferentially but while silencing critical voices and alternatives?

Click to expand...

So then, you won't mind me coming into your church to deliver classes on evolution?

Sidon said:

"""""""This implies the alternatives have merits or validity. Just because one has a contradictory view, there is no necessitation of merit associated with it.""""""""

To deny the alternative argument has merit, is to imply that the original idea or argument must be valid and true.
So, in steps opinion as the final answer and Judge and jury, unless we are dealing with provable science, and not a "theory".

Click to expand...

an alternative to germ theory is that sickness and disease are caused by the ghosts of aliens who were killed when they were tossed into the Hawaiian volcano attach themselves to living humans and drain their life essence (Scientology)
How much merit do you think this alternative has?

A lot of science is theory taught as truth.
For example, science teaches that there must be a "gene".. a genetic component that causes "Gay".
And what is their scientific proof? They say...>"well, eventually we will find it" "so for now just believe us, as we are Science".

A.) Sorry no

Click to expand...

that is not what science is saying on this subject at all.

""""""""Whether ideas are valid or have merit is something that must be established on their own.""""""

Who gets to decide if an idea is valid or if the rebuttal is invaid?
Who decides that authority?
It depends not on the subject being argued, but only on where the argument is being held.
Also, why does the authority's personal motivation and point of view get to be the decider for the rest?

Click to expand...

you think alien ghosts are a valid explanation of disease?

apogee said:

sorry, It was definitely an attempt at humor/humour.

Click to expand...

I know ... and it's funny.

But ... um ... let's put it this way:

If you're one gender, then:

If you're the other, then:

Fervent said:

No, they're not. We must use our faculties of reason to expound on God's word and determine the scope of its meaning. We do not simply memorize and regurgitate, we turn it over and meditate on it and consider the scope and extent. What God's word trumps is our speculations that begin from ignorance. God has provided us with a foundation upon which to build knowledge, we do not get to substitute it with one of our choosing. Human theories, no matter how elaborate or sophisticated, are ultimately contingent on the strength of their assumptions. Begin with bad assumptions, you're going to get incorrect conclusions.

Click to expand...

This is a load of theobabble.

In your own words you will choose God's word over reason. Choosing God's word is an act of faith - not reason.

OB

Ophiolite said:

While ignoring the constitutional requirement to separate state and religion? Are you some sort of a revolutionary?

Click to expand...

How are we defining "religion?" Does any theistic claim constitute a religious claim?

Ophiolite said:

How do you know the laws are irrational? Do you think we should tell children that gravity isn't real?

Click to expand...

They are taught to be irrational, as in not the product of a mind. I certainly don't believe that the supposed "laws" by which physicality is governed are irrational, but to teach otherwise would be called an inappropriate endorsement of religious belief.

Ophiolite said:

So then, you won't mind me coming into your church to deliver classes on evolution?

Click to expand...

Is a church a government run facility? You want science-only spaces, that's fine. But why should we give exclusive access to a particular religious claim(and here I am using religious claim as a matter of "what governs the universe?" rather than defining it in terms of deities.)