Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

Mark Quayle said:

Interesting. So there can be no theory concerning first cause nor eternal universe?

Click to expand...

the big bang theory certainly exists

pitabread said:

What if the creationist Biblical interpretation wasn't true? What then?

Click to expand...

Reason and argumentation. Questions of semantics, grammatics, historical assumptions. Is it absolutely definite Genesis is meant to be read literally and not allegorically? Nah, it just seems the stronger possibility.

pitabread said:

As pointed out repeatedly now, evolution is not synonymous with atheism.

Click to expand...

YECs reject any model of origins that precludes God (in a literal Genesis 1 context). But our grasp of contemporary STEM does not suffer for it.

Quartermaine said:

the big bang theory certainly exists

Click to expand...

So....the BB points at God, you are saying?

Mark Quayle said:

So....the BB points at God, you are saying?

Click to expand...

No i'm saying that the big bang theory is a theory of "first cause" and is based on evidence and observation and can be and has been tested.

Sabertooth said:

I am a member of Mensa ...

Click to expand...

I'm impressed.

We had another Mensan who posted here a few years ago.

Quartermaine said:

Intelligent design or creationism are not theories. Theories are based on evidence and observation and can be tested.

Click to expand...

No, theories are ways in which facts are organized whether they are testable or not(in fact, if falsifiability is your criteria then evolution fails that test). "Evidence" is meaningless until it is placed in a theory that provides both a description of facts and a explanation of what those facts indicate.

Mark Quayle said:

You're not answering.... ...So you are, or you are not, going to call Creationism ludicrous? After all, if God is Omnipotent... or is that ludicrous too?

Click to expand...

this will probably depend on your understanding of what a scientific theory appropriate to teaching in a classroom is. As to the properties of God, they are not directly relevant to the ludicrosity of any particular theory in general.

Quartermaine said:

Intelligent design or creationism are not theories. Theories are based on evidence and observation and can be tested.

Click to expand...

THEORY theory - Dictionary Definition

noun
a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

Fervent said:

No, theories are ways in which facts are organized whether they are testable or not

Click to expand...

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

(in fact, if falsifiability is your criteria then evolution fails that test).

Click to expand...

care to back this up?

"Evidence" is meaningless until it is placed in a theory that provides both a description of facts and a explanation of what those facts indicate.

Click to expand...

and the theory of evolution does that

Mark Quayle said:

THEORY theory - Dictionary Definition

noun
a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

Click to expand...

You left out the majority of the definition. Why?

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

this will probably depend on your understanding of what a scientific theory appropriate to teaching in a classroom is. As to the properties of God, they are not directly relevant to the ludicrosity of any particular theory in general.

Click to expand...

word salad, or cryptic?

AV1611VET said:

Good poll.

I voted: I'm a creationist and I think creationist beliefs do NOT encourage anti-intellectualism.

Click to expand...

Are you being ironic? It's hard to tell.

Quartermaine said:

care to back this up?

Click to expand...

What piece of evidence would prove it false?

Fervent said:

No, theories are ways in which facts are organized whether they are testable or not(in fact, if falsifiability is your criteria then evolution fails that test). "Evidence" is meaningless until it is placed in a theory that provides both a description of facts and a explanation of what those facts indicate.

Click to expand...

Well you are closer than average to a decent understanding of "theory" but can you tell us why evolution is not a theory, or why it fails as such if that was your meaning?

Quartermaine said:

You left out the majority of the definition. Why?

Click to expand...

Because this one suffices. There are several different uses of the word "theory". Yours was only one of them too.

Bradskii said:

Are you being ironic? It's hard to tell.

Click to expand...

I think Alfred is both smiling and winking at us all the time.

Fervent said:

What piece of evidence would prove it false?

Click to expand...

you are the one who claimed that evolution has been falsified...can you back that claim up?

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

Well you are closer than average to a decent understanding of "theory" but can you tell us why evolution is not a theory, or why it fails as such if that was your meaning?

Click to expand...

That wasn't my intent, but to highlight that whether "scientific" or not ID and creation are both theories, though not necessarily empirical.

Mark Quayle said:

Because this one suffices.

Click to expand...

suffices for what?