How many creationists practise what they preach?

expos4ever · Mar 1, 2016

To be fair to Extraneous, no one, and I mean no one, ever acknowledges a mistake on these boards. Or at least it happens so rarely that I cannot think of one instance where anyone was willing to admit their position needed rework. That is really a shame. And I am not only talking about believers. I can think of at least two occasions where I am quite confident that an "atheist" was shown to be in the wrong about something. And just like everyone, rather than magnanimously recognize hteir error, they simply refuse to continue the conversation. I realize it can be hard to accept one is mistaken, but surely it should not be that hard.

pat34lee · Mar 1, 2016

CarlaB said:
Creationists ask that the schools should 'Teach both sides' meaning teach creationism along with evolution in the science class.

How many creationists here teach their home schooled children both sides?
How many creationists here are happy that their children are taught about evolution in school then teach them about creationism at home?

There is no problem teaching evolution as what it is,
a bad theory, more of a hoax, made by those who wish
to replace God with nature and chaos.

Loudmouth · Mar 1, 2016

pat34lee said:
There is no problem teaching evolution as what it is,
a bad theory, more of a hoax, made by those who wish
to replace God with nature and chaos.

Yet more empty allegations.

expos4ever · Mar 1, 2016

pat34lee said:
There is no problem teaching evolution as what it is,
a bad theory, more of a hoax, made by those who wish
to replace God with nature and chaos.

How is this theory bad? More specifically, to be "bad" a theory would offer a model of the way the world works that does not have evidential support. So, please tell us: Are you saying that the theory of evolution is not supported by the facts? Presumably you would not say this without actually knowing what evolution predicts and also having a specific argument as to how the evidence does not support the theory.

bhsmte · Mar 1, 2016

Tree of Life said:
Public schools ought to recognize the dominant cultural narrative. Especially when they teach something that apparently does not comply with it. That's just good pedagogy 101. When I teach the Bible I make sure that I'm contrasting it with the dominant views of the culture. Otherwise the teaching is not very affective or practical.

In science class, science should be taught, would you agree?

If you want religious theology taught, pick another class, like the history of world religion, were all religions can be covered.

Tree of Life · Mar 1, 2016

bhsmte said:
In science class, science should be taught, would you agree?

If you want religious theology taught, pick another class, like the history of world religion, were all religions can be covered.

I'm not sure that subjects should be so violently and artificially compartmentalized.

bhsmte · Mar 1, 2016

Tree of Life said:
Maybe so. But how do you put your beliefs aside if you never acknowledge them and acknowledge where the evidence seems to be in discord with them?

Well, with some christians, when scientific evidence contradicts their personal faith beliefs, they just build defense mechanisms, to protect their tightly held beliefs.

We see it on this site all the time; denial, confirmation bias etc.

PsychoSarah · Mar 1, 2016

Extraneous said:
I remain skeptical. Its only wise to do so. It would do no good for me to argue about it, because i have seen that people are bias and cannot agree on something as simple as the value of healthy skepticism.

If you are skeptical of evolution for perceived problems, surely you have noticed that creationism bears with it far more.

bhsmte · Mar 1, 2016

Tree of Life said:
I'm not sure that subjects should be so violently and artificially compartmentalized.

Be clearer.

Are you saying that other things besides science should be taught in science class?

Would this also mean, we should teach some science, in religion class?

Tree of Life · Mar 1, 2016

bhsmte said:
Be clearer.

Are you saying that other things besides science should be taught in science class?

Would this also mean, we should teach some science, in religion class?

I think that schooling systems ought to do a better job of interdisciplinary learning, integrating subjects, and showing how various subjects relate and depend upon one another. In practice this would mean discussing religious and scientific issues together.

bhsmte · Mar 1, 2016

Tree of Life said:
I think that schooling systems ought to do a better job of interdisciplinary learning, integrating subjects, and showing how various subjects relate and depend upon one another. In practice this would mean discussing religious and scientific issues together.

Tell us then, how does doing good science, depend on religion

Paul of Eugene OR · Mar 1, 2016

Extraneous said:
I have showed what i disagree with, but im just shouted down by the infallible consensus. It matters little to me however. GOd will allow the blind to lead the blind.

You could try using evidence . . . or following evidence . . . .

dad · Mar 1, 2016

CarlaB said:
Creationists ask that the schools should 'Teach both sides' meaning teach creationism along with evolution in the science class.

How many creationists here teach their home schooled children both sides?
How many creationists here are happy that their children are taught about evolution in school then teach them about creationism at home?

I do not think lies should be taught as well as truth. Teach one side.

Tree of Life · Mar 1, 2016

bhsmte said:
Tell us then, how does doing good science, depend on religion

Well...

The practice of good science carries its own religious assumptions into the discipline. Assumptions such as we can know things about the phenomenal and noumenal world, that empiricism is a viable epistemology, etc... These are, at heart, philosophical and religious assumptions although they may not be theistic.
From my perspective good science grows out of Christianity. Christian theology produced values and ideas such as free thought and inquiry, the value of scientifically analyzing natural revelation, and the authority of science as a whole. Most scientific fathers were protestant and certainly the Christian faith gave rise to the scientific revolution.

Loudmouth · Mar 1, 2016

Tree of Life said:
I think that schooling systems ought to do a better job of interdisciplinary learning, integrating subjects, and showing how various subjects relate and depend upon one another. In practice this would mean discussing religious and scientific issues together.

Discussing religion in public school classroom would almost certainly fail the Lemon Test.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

Also, science doesn't depend on religion at all. You might as well say that Algebra disproves God in math class.

Loudmouth · Mar 1, 2016

Tree of Life said:
Well...

The practice of good science carries its own religious assumptions into the discipline. Assumptions such as we can know things about the phenomenal and noumenal world, that empiricism is a viable epistemology, etc... These are, at heart, philosophical and religious assumptions although they may not be theistic.

There is nothing religious about them. They don't involve a deity.

From my perspective good science grows out of Christianity. Christian theology produced values and ideas such as free thought and inquiry, the value of scientifically analyzing natural revelation, and the authority of science as a whole. Most scientific fathers were protestant and certainly the Christian faith gave rise to the scientific revolution.

I guess you never heard of this guy named Galileo?

Extraneous · Mar 1, 2016

PsychoSarah said:
If you are skeptical of evolution for perceived problems, surely you have noticed that creationism bears with it far more.

I dont really follow science in that way at all. I follow faith but i dont mix faith and science. If others do so, then thats their way.

Extraneous · Mar 1, 2016

Paul of Eugene OR said:
You could try using evidence . . . or following evidence . . . .

I folowed the evidence, it didnt lead me to believe in ToE as a whole, or in Global warming either

expos4ever · Mar 1, 2016

Extraneous said:
I folowed the evidence, it didnt lead me to believe in ToE as a whole, or in Global warming either

Please give us the specifics: where specifically are either (1) ToE; and (2) Human-caused Global Warming not supported by the evidence?

Loudmouth · Mar 1, 2016

Extraneous said:
I folowed the evidence, it didnt lead me to believe in ToE as a whole, or in Global warming either

What evidence did you follow for evolution?

How many creationists practise what they preach?

Well-Known Member

Messianic

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Hide The Pain

Newbie

Chaotic Neutral

Newbie

Hide The Pain

Newbie

Finally Old Enough

Undefeated!

Hide The Pain

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency