Creation School. Do we need one?

[Loudmouth]

I can only understand two or three possible reasons for your reply. 1. you have never looked into this aspect of academia. or 2. you have been successfully indoctrinated from a young age. or 3. you have not yet either reached the political levels of your field or you have not yet been placed in a situation where you have had to choose to challenge the status quo or to remain quiet and comply. Perhaps I am mistaken.

What is your experience with grad school in the biological sciences?

 

[sfs]

I can only understand two or three possible reasons for your reply. 1. you have never looked into this aspect of academia. or

I don't know what this possibility means in context, since you're saying this kind of imposed orthodoxy is rife in academia. How could I have missed it if I've been in academia my whole life?

2. you have been successfully indoctrinated from a young age.

Indoctrinated into what? I have no formal training in one of my fields.

or 3. you have not yet either reached the political levels of your field or you have not yet been placed in a situation where you have had to choose to challenge the status quo or to remain quiet and comply. Perhaps I am mistaken.

I have experience with political levels in my field much higher than you ever reached. In ~30 years of involvement in science, at some of the biggest name institutions around, I've seen lots of dodgy stuff of one sort or another, but I've never seen a single instance of what you seem to be describing. Is it possible that your own experience doesn't generalize to all of academia?

 

[Loudmouth]

that is not it. I see see your a know nothing loudmouth and you hate who you hate and but what you hate is Alive and BIG BOY He can defend Himself. if I tell you ancient secrets and concepts and you open you loudmouth and mock it and you no doubt will . you will do it against people who can't defend themselves, they are dead and I can't have that again . so Hell no !

If you are going to make allegations against people, at least have the backbone to back it up.

 

[sfs]

that is not it. I see see your a know nothing loudmouth and you hate who you hate and but what you hate is Alive and BIG BOY He can defend Himself. if I tell you ancient secrets and concepts and you open you loudmouth and mock it and you no doubt will . you will do it against people who can't defend themselves, they are dead and I can't have that again . so Hell no !

What does hate have to do with it? You made some rather confusing statements. Could you please explain them?

 

[Truly1999]

Either you've made a broad study of all of the sciences and the humanities, or you're generalizing from a limited set of data to fields you don't know well.


Now that's a field I have no trouble believing is rife with political factions.

Moving from the specific to the general is a skill which is expected of graduates and postgraduates. This is done through observation and comparison, don't you know. I have observed all fields in brief and compared with my own. This is how you do it. Another example is surveys - from a sample of 1,000 assumptions are generalized for the whole population, but the canvassers cannot possibly canvas 60 million people.

Politics is in everything. Promotion in careers is based primarily upon whether the candidate is a "safe pair of hands", someone who understands the culture of the organization, who can be trusted, who seeks improvement and dismantling, someone who is a "mini-Me". Forget about whether they can do the job or not. In fact, many managers do not have the groundwork training or experience; rather, their purpose is to manage those who do know how.

 

[sfs]

Moving from the specific to the general is a skill which is expected of graduates and postgraduates. This is done through observation and comparison, don't you know. I have observed all fields in brief and compared with my own. This is how you do it. Another example is surveys - from a sample of 1,000 assumptions are generalized for the whole population, but the canvassers cannot possibly canvas 60 million people.

Politics is in everything. Promotion in careers is based primarily upon whether the candidate is a "safe pair of hands", someone who understands the culture of the organization, who can be trusted, who seeks improvement and dismantling, someone who is a "mini-Me". Forget about whether they can do the job or not. In fact, many managers do not have the groundwork training or experience; rather, their purpose is to manage those who do know how.

Yes, I know that observation and comparison are important skills in forming generalizations. In this thread, you're being offered observations from fields you have no first-hand experience of, given by people with that kind of experience -- in physics and genetics in my case -- and you're rejecting them because they differ from your existing view. So I have to ask: exactly how did you observe "all fields in brief"? That strikes me as a complete impossibility, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. What ideological party line are particle physicists required to toe, for example?

 

[Truly1999]

Yes, I know that observation and comparison are important skills in forming generalizations. In this thread, you're being offered observations from fields you have no first-hand experience of, given by people with that kind of experience -- in physics and genetics in my case -- and you're rejecting them because they differ from your existing view. So I have to ask: exactly how did you observe "all fields in brief"? That strikes me as a complete impossibility, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. What ideological party line are particle physicists required to toe, for example?

I'm not sure if I have the energy to try and convince you to be honest. Often, people can either see it or not. They either grasp certain principles or they don't. I believe I've explained myself sufficiently enough for you to either grasp it, or for you to discover for yourself. No offence, but we're risking going off topic now.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not sure if I have the energy to try and convince you to be honest. Often, people can either see it or not. They either grasp certain principles or they don't. I believe I've explained myself sufficiently enough for you to either grasp it, or for you to discover for yourself. No offence, but we're risking going off topic now.

I am quite familiar with grad schools, professors, and the politics of scientific research. What you said makes no sense to me, either. It sounds like it came from someone with no experience in the field who is trying to bluff their way through.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Personally, I'd love to see the technology that would come from a creationist equivalent to Cal-Tech or MIT. Don't ask me to try out any of their machines, though...

 

[Papias]

sorry but they don't know squat about the natural world.
it is by my own and my cultures ancient knowledge that I understand the natural world around me . but some guy with some binoculars don't know what he is looking at, and guy with a microscope knows even less what is happening.
their predictions are not close much less right or in any way facts . but people ....

wow, talk about Dunning-Kruger!

Truly wrote:
*****But, when it comes to postgraduate study,**********


Um, I too have been through graduate studies, have published papers in peer reviewed journals, and that appears simply false. In science one gets fame, fortune and even tenure for disagreeing with, and disproving the highest findings of one's field, as long as one can support one's point with evidence. It's completely the opposite of being rewarded for toeing the line. One get's the best rewards for proving the line wrong - if, and only if, one can point to real evidence.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[sfs]

I'm not sure if I have the energy to try and convince you to be honest. Often, people can either see it or not. They either grasp certain principles or they don't. I believe I've explained myself sufficiently enough for you to either grasp it, or for you to discover for yourself. No offence, but we're risking going off topic now.

You haven't explained yourself at all. You say that there are ideological lines that have to be obeyed in my field but you won't tell me what they are or how you know they're there.

 

[Split Rock]

sorry but they don't know squat about the natural world.
it is by my own and my cultures ancient knowledge that I understand the natural world around me . but some guy with some binoculars don't know what he is looking at, and guy with a microscope knows even less what is happening.
their predictions are not close much less right or in any way facts . but people are told over and over and over they know the facts so we hear about all these "facts" and still no one predicts it right , nor even asks the right questions to predict the rights answers.
they don't have facts or even good theories.. they have only lies and militant lies at that.

So, you don't use any science in your farming? No pesticides, processed fertilizer, etc.? No GPS? No hybrids?

 

[Split Rock]

Either you've made a broad study of all of the sciences and the humanities, or you're generalizing from a limited set of data to fields you don't know well.

I have to agree with sfs. I haven't seen any of this in weed science, breeding or other areas of agricultural research. (and there are plenty of controversies in these field, btw).

 

[florida2]

sorry but they don't know squat about the natural world.
it is by my own and my cultures ancient knowledge that I understand the natural world around me . but some guy with some binoculars don't know what he is looking at, and guy with a microscope knows even less what is happening.

So what is this amazing 'ancient knowledge' that is so much better than using microscopes etc?

their predictions are not close much less right or in any way facts . but people are told over and over and over they know the facts so we hear about all these "facts" and still no one predicts it right , nor even asks the right questions to predict the rights answers.
they don't have facts or even good theories.. they have only lies and militant lies at that.

When you care to write that in understandable English, let me know.

What are these 'predictions' which are so wrong and facts that they've got wrong?

What are these 'militant lies'?

 

[sfs]

I have to agree with sfs. I haven't seen any of this in weed science, breeding or other areas of agricultural research. (and there are plenty of controversies in these field, btw).

The closest I can think of in human genetics is something like studying race-based genetic differences in intelligence. You can study the subject, but you'll get lots of pushback, and not all of it will be scientifically based. (You'll also get plenty of scientific pushback on every dimension of the question as I posed it, including the concept of race, of intelligence, how they're defined and measured, and how to do the genetic study without being fooled by confounders, if that's even possible.)

 

[TheBarrd]

First of all, the Bible was never intended to be a science textbook.
Why would God hand us a technical manual explaining how to build our own universe and create life from scratch? Even if we could understand such a thing...which is not too likely, especially considering that the writers came from a time before there were electric lights or running water...

I don't see any real conflict between God and science. Of course, I'm no scientist, but that's not the point. Science cannot discern God, nor will it ever be able to. Nor should it, anyway.

However, I can't see how science can ever "discover" anything that God didn't put there in the first place...

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[TheBarrd]

.

I didn't think it was possible to enter a blank message...

 

[Ada Lovelace]

You should ask them if they have a Geocentrism class that can train you to stand up to Heliocentrism.

If I were an atheist hell-bent on undermining the Christian faith, then I would be encouraging Christians to keep teaching creationism.

There is a group of atheists, Christians, and theists of many stripes who all agree that your science has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. Science is way too important and way too awesome to see it ruined by unnecessary religious traditions such as young earth creationism.

Yep. Some of the staunchest critics of Young Earth Creationism are Christians who see the detriment it has caused to the faith. The Barna Group has identified the perceived antagonism between Christianity and science as one of the reasons young Christians leave the church.

This is the poll from Christianity Today asking who "won" the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye last year:

Since the screenshot was taken Nye has received more votes. http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...vs.evolution.debate.here.start.time/35688.htm

On a personal note, atheists, agnostics, and those of other religions have never in any way undermined my faith, nor has studying science and philosophy. The absolute most corrosive influence my religious beliefs has been Young Earth Creationism. It has been a toxin to me. I'd been happily oblivious that it wasn't merely an obsolete or a fringe doctrine until 2013 (age 15), and I honestly would have preferred remaining that way. My family is filled with scientists and doctors who are all also Christians, and I grew up attending megachurches and the National Cathedral School, and yet had never encountered anyone who said they believed in YEC. It just wasn't a problem for me until it was suddenly presented as one.

 

[Saricharity]

The absolute most corrosive influence my religious beliefs has been Young Earth Creationism. It has been a toxin to me. I'd been happily oblivious that it wasn't merely an obsolete or a fringe doctrine until 2013 (age 15), and I honestly would have preferred remaining that way. My family is filled with scientists and doctors who are all also Christians, and I grew up attending megachurches and the National Cathedral School, and yet had never encountered anyone who said they believed in YEC. It just wasn't a problem for me until it was suddenly presented as one.

Completely heart breaking to know how toxic it is to you and how it seems to reflect 2013.