Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[dlamberth]

...creationists rely excessively on "logic" with little or no consideration for facts or data.

I disagree. I'd replace the word "logic" with the words "mental concepts".

 

[driewerf]

I disagree. I'd replace the word "logic" with the words "mental concepts".

Fun fact, just below my post that you quoted Bobryan posted:

scientifically - it makes no sense at all to claim that dust, gas, rocks and sunlight will "turn into a horse over time due to some innate undiscovered property of rocks".

It is much more logical to say that an infinitely capable Creator can do it

 

[AV1611VET]

Its a racist term used instead of another racist term ...

Ya ... like Canada geese, French fries, or Italian sausage?

 

[VirOptimus]

It is false to say that it is unconstitutional to inform students about the Bible doctrine on origins and that only evolutionist doctrine on origins should be "allowed".

When the subject comes up that answers the question: "how did all life on Earth come about?" the historic fact is Bible creation - which is how it actually happened in real history. Claiming that it is "science" to try and imagine a way that it happened even if it is not at all what happened in nature, what happened in real history - is not logical.

scientifically - it makes no sense at all to claim that dust, gas, rocks and sunlight will "turn into a horse over time due to some innate undiscovered property of rocks".

It is much more logical to say that an infinitely capable Creator can do it - but not at all science fact that becoming a horse is an observed reproducible innate property of rocks themselves, given enough time and chance.

The same thing is true even at one of the smallest levels where one might 'imagine' a prokaryote "becoming" a eukaryote. That is not observable or reproducible.

Creationism is religion.

Every time religion has opposed science (i.e. physical reality) it has lost.

You simply dont know what you are talking about.

 

[renniks]

Don't speak for others. I'm a Christian and I reject ID (as embodied in the Intelligent Design movement and the Discovery Institute) because it's a mishmash of bad, misleading, and vacuous arguments dressed up as science.

So, as a Christian, you believe recognizing God as the designer of life is a bad idea? Weird.

 

[Speedwell]

So, as a Christian, you believe recognizing God as the designer of life is a bad idea? Weird.

So as a Christian, you think misrepresenting sfs's comments is a good idea? Weird.

 

[renniks]

And scientific arguments begin with data. With empirically gathered facts.
Logic is but a tool to analyse this data and come to explain the data with theories. Logic without data is like letting an machine turn empty. Except for a lot noise you produce nothing.

that' another gap between creationists and scientifically educated people: creationists rely excessively on "logic" with little or no consideration for facts or data.

Modern reasoning holds up logic and data as if they were literally gods. If the world contains anything that is in any way supernatural the whole scientific method is faulty. People are more narrow minded than ever in the so called age of reason.

 

[renniks]

but because for theists and atheists it is bad science and for theists it is bad theology.

According to you.

 

[Landon Caeli]

It makes no sense, to be so selfish that someone would think it's okay to blend religion and science. What a sick joke.

 

[dlamberth]

So, as a Christian, you believe recognizing God as the designer of life is a bad idea? Weird.

sfs explained his reasoning. Maybe address that?

 

[BobRyan]

It makes no sense, to be so selfish that someone would think it's okay to blend religion and science. What a sick joke.

And yet evolutionism is still taught in public schools

 

[BobRyan]

Teaching sectarian religious doctrine in the public schools is unconstitutional.

And yet - evolutionism is still taught in public schools. Given that they already have that breach - then find - creationism as well.

 

[sfs]

So, as a Christian, you believe recognizing God as the designer of life is a bad idea?

No, had I meant to say that, I would have said that. Would you care to engage with what I actually wrote?

 

[sfs]

And yet evolutionism is still taught in public schools

I'm not aware of any schools that teach 'evolutionism', whatever that is. Some (too few) schools do teach evolutionary biology, which is a branch of science and therefore appropriate for public schools.

 

[Speedwell]

so is evoluionism.

I would be just fine with schools only teaching observable science - but in that case no "doctrine on origins" in the science class unless they can reproduce it.

"Evolutionism," "observable science" and the rest of that kind of cant is part of your doctrine.

 

[VirOptimus]

so is evoluionism.

I would be just fine with schools only teaching observable science - but in that case no "doctrine on origins" in the science class unless they can reproduce it.

No its not.

Its against the sites rules to call science a religion.

 

[BobRyan]

Its against the sites rules to call science a religion.

And I never do that.

 

[VirOptimus]

And I never do that.

You did in the quoted post (and several more).

 

[BobRyan]

You did in the quoted post (and several more).

As an atheist (which your profile says you are) do you define evolutionism as being "science" - do you read the rule as "you cannot call evolutionism a religion"???

As an atheist I can see why you might want the CF rules to use such a thumb-on-the-scales-in-favor-of-evolutionism definition for the term 'science' - but I think there are creationists that do not pour that meaning into the term "science".

 

[VirOptimus]

As an atheist (which your profile says you are) do you define evolutionism as being "science" - do you read the rule as "you cannot call evolutionism a religion"???

The theory of evolution is science, thats a fact.