Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

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?

Well first you probably need to demonstrate that the last several thousands of years of gained knowledge of the universe is actually irrational, and then it might be useful to demonstrate a god that could in fact make those thousands of years of observation irrational. In the mean time, I will not assume an irrational arbiter over whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[pitabread]

There were perhaps 2 examples in which teaching evolution was suppressed. No examples within the last 60 years.

There were three state laws cited. Also cited were apparent campaigns to remove evolution from textbooks.

This is also just within the U.S. If we expand to countries outside of the U.S., there are many more examples. One more recent example was Turkey's attempt to make it illegal to teach evolution.

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.

Context matters. The "suppression" of intelligent design / creationism has to do with Constitutional violations in putting forth creationism or ID education bills.

If you're upset with that, take it up with your countries founding laws. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Fervent]

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

I see no conflict between the two. Reason is a tool, a means of arriving at conclusions, not a starting point. God's word is a foundation upon which reason proceeds.

 

[pitabread]

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?

What's the context here? Science classes? Or something else?

 

[Taodeching]

Thoughts?

I do believe that it does encourage absolute anti-intellectualism, now more so with social media and the internet. Though people that remain dolts will always be around

 

[pitabread]

Begin with bad assumptions, you're going to get incorrect conclusions.

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

 

[apogee]

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:

ah yes, of course, I forget that my balding , middle-aged state isn't exactly well communicated by profile.

 

[Fervent]

Well first you probably need to demonstrate that the last several thousands of years of gained knowledge of the universe is actually irrational, and then it might be useful to demonstrate a god that could in fact make those thousands of years of observation irrational. In the mean time, I will not assume an irrational arbiter over whether the sun will rise tomorrow.

You're treading into epistemic questions that are beyond the scope of this discussion. "Irrational" is not meant disparagingly but as a descriptor of "forces not of a mind." It is literally what atheists propose and refuse to defend.

 

[pitabread]

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.

This is not the case at all. Take someone like Dr. Francis Collins. He's an evangelical Christians and seems well respected in his field.

We have to be careful here not to confuse creationism with all theistic beliefs. Theism is not a synonym for creationism, as I pointed out in the OP.

 

[apogee]

theobabble.

I'm having that

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

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

well honestly, i agree the point is to keep ludicrous theories out, do you disagree?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

You're treading into epistemic questions that are beyond the scope of this discussion. "Irrational" is not meant disparagingly but as a descriptor of "forces not of a mind." It is literally what atheists propose and refuse to defend.

Not if you are going to use whatever definition of irrational that you are using that you claim to be beyond this discussion. Not of the mind, is not a commonly accepted definition of irrational in the local context. If you wish to use it in your context, I suggest you need to defend your use.

 

[Quartermaine]

""""""There is not such thing as "provable science". Right off the bat, this suggests a misunderstanding of the nature of science.""""""


Math is a science.
Its provable, pitabread.
Ask any "proof".
Ask any equation.
3x = 21

X =7 , all day and all night long.

Mathematical expressions are provable, scientific theories are merely demonstrable. Math is deductive. Science is empirical.

'"""""""Truth in science is provisional. Proper science education should include this understanding.""""""

Fluid truth, isn't truth anymore then fluid sexuality is moral.
C'mon.

that is your opinion

That cold is the absence of heat does not prove that Heat does not exist.

temperature is demonstrable.

That you can't seen UV rays, does not keep them from burning you to a red skinned crisp if you stay in the sun tooooo long.

that light comes in a range of wavelengths is demonstrable

Pragmatism along with its immoral equivalency = "if it does not hurt anyone, its ok to do it",

pragmatism rejects the idea that there is any universal ethical standard. It holds for ethical principles being social constructs to be evaluated in terms of their usefullness and effectivness.

is directly connected to the Satanic Bible.
Have you ever read it?
It has one "law" in it, pitabread.

"""""Do what tho wilt, shall be the whole of the law""""

Simon LeVay wrote the Satanic Bible, you are however quoting Aliser Crowley

Paraphrase...>"If it feels good, do it, consequences be damned" "there is no God , so, no worries, be happy in your sin and depravity".

That is just not true

"""""""This is a gross strawman. Homosexuality is actually considered a multi-variate trait """""


Yes, Science created that bumper sticker. You like it , huh?
Science had to come up with a new one, as the ...."we are still looking for the gay gene", finally wore out its welcome and stalled in the air, after 60 years.

Gene's control the production of proteins by cells. It would be laughable to think that any complex social behavior like orientation woudl be reliant on one gene.
There isn't a single gene that makes people African American but that doesn't mean that being African American isn't inborn.

""""""""This is typically the provision of whichever governance body happens to be regulating school curriculums in a given jurisdiction, coupled with the legal authority governing the same."""""

If you control the minds of the Youth, you can create the next generation according to the master plan.

In the early 60s, Nikita Khrushchev, told JFK, (paraphrase) >we will destroy the USA without firing a shot. We will hook the American Youth on rock music, pornography, and alt sexuality, and in just a few generations, your country will decline and then fall as perverted darkness ....watch and see<.

how is that working out for the Soviet Union?

 

[Sabertooth]

I am a member of Mensa & Intertel and a retired systems analyst.
YECs can accept the prevailing theories of observable STEM.
We just reject the atheistic models of origins.
(But that isn't required to embrace contemporary STEM.)

 

[Quartermaine]

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.

that isn't from the constitution....

 

[Quartermaine]

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.

name them

 

[Mark Quayle]

well honestly, i agree the point is to keep ludicrous theories out, do you disagree?

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?

 

[Quartermaine]

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

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

 

[pitabread]

We just reject the atheistic models of origins.

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

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

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