Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Ken Behrens]

Opinion.

Yes, and one that is personally important to me. I have to deal every day with the fact that 70% of students matriculating into college (who I must teach) hate math so bad, they cannot do seventh grade algebra.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Not all ideas are equal. It is just a fact of life that some people are wrong. Those wrong ideas don't become good ideas simply by believing in them harder.

I agree. We just disagree on which ones are the wrong ones. History shows people do not act on the right ideas, but on the ideas they believe.

 

[Ken Behrens]

With some, reality takes a back seat to what they psychologicaly need to see. To them, well evidenced reality is to painful to acknowledge. So, they manufacture their own reality.

And I think that when it comes to long ago and far away, scientists are in that category.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Not anyone who knows anything about science--and who else would you listen to on the subject?

The people who are doing the talking.

 

[Ken Behrens]

well, scientic theories work. Every hour of evsry day, you enjoy the benefits of the many scientific theories that deliver.

I agree. My problem is not with science's ability to make today better. My problem is with the assumption that they can use these ideas to analyze the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

With some, reality takes a back seat to what they psychologicaly need to see. To them, well evidenced reality is to painful to acknowledge. So, they manufacture their own reality.

Creationists seem to be big fans of postmodernism.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Scientific theories are provisional until falsified. They are not facts. I think the "fact" that bothers Creationists is the fact that YECism has already been falsified.

I am not a YEC. I am an "I don't know". i do not know of any positive falsification.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree. My problem is not with science's ability to make today better. My problem is with the assumption that they can use these ideas to analyze the past.

The problem is that they are observations, not assumptions. You refuse to acknowledge this fact.

 

[Ken Behrens]

More opinion.

I also posted the referred journal backing it.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree. My problem is not with science's ability to make today better. My problem is with the assumption that they can use these ideas to analyze the past.

If science is as limited as you claim, they would not have accomplished near as much as they have.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unless they have been changed by some external force in the meantime.

It is those changes that allow us to know what external forces have been applied to the rocks.

Like the famous The London Hammer: An Alleged Out of Place Artifact It's lucky we have a way to prove that this is not what it originally seemed to be.

It's a hammer covered in a concretion. I don't understand why you think this is a big deal.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have previously stated I do not know how old the earth is. If I had such evidence, I would know.

What evidence are scientists ignoring that casts doubt on the ages they have assigned to the Earth and to the Universe?

 

[bhsmte]

Creationists seem to be big fans of postmodernism.

Creaationists, also have extremely robust defense mechanisms. These are required to protect their tightly held belief and protect it at all costs.

 

[Ken Behrens]

It's irrelevant how common any belief is, as that doesn't contribute to credibility. Also, atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief in deities. If I were exposed to sufficient evidence, I'd believe in them, I just haven't been exposed to such evidence, so I don't. So, until further notice, I consider deities a concept, yes, but few atheists would astutely claim that they absolutely don't exist.


Then magic is just as viable an explanation as your 4th dimensional light is. Actually, it's more viable, because I can't demonstrate that magic would tear the universe apart like increasing the speed of light to the point that it transcends the 3rd dimension would.

I'm not an expert, but doesn't make you an agnostic?
Wasn't it someone like Karl Sagan maybe who once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable form magic? Have you ever read "Real Magick" by PEI Bonewits? He puts scientific research proving magic is a real force. Real Magic: An Introductory Treatise on the Basic Principles of Yellow Magic

 

[Loudmouth]

That is exactly the point at issue. You were not there, you cannot be sure except by inference.

You mean the same type of inference that all of science uses? The same type of inference that allows us to use forensic evidence to convict criminals? The same type of inference that allows us to use DNA to determine paternity?

In trying to deny the evidence you have to deny the most basic use of logic and reason.

 

[Loudmouth]

What God created on the first day is bigger than three dimensions, and does not need sun or moon to exist. The light we see coming from the sun is thus something less than that.

What evidence would you present to students to back this claim?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agree. My problem is not with science's ability to make today better. My problem is with the assumption that they can use these ideas to analyze the past.

If science could not effectively analyze the past, then forensics would pretty much be destroyed. It'd be like saying that finding an individual's sperm in a rape victim didn't make them a suspect. It's like saying the fact that I recently turned 22 isn't evidence that I was born in 1995.

Also, if you can't scientifically analyze the past, you can't claim any evidence for biblical stuff either, since it all happened in the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not an expert, but doesn't make you an agnostic?

Agnostics are atheists since they don't have a positive believe in deities.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm not an expert, but doesn't make you an agnostic?
Wasn't it someone like Karl Sagan maybe who once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable form magic? Have you ever read "Real Magick" by PEI Bonewits? He puts scientific research proving magic is a real force. Real Magic: An Introductory Treatise on the Basic Principles of Yellow Magic

Agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is actually a statement of knowledge, not belief.
At the basics, a person can be:
1. An agnostic atheist, which is a person that doesn't believe in deities, but also doesn't claim that deities can't possibly exist.
2. A gnostic atheist, which are pretty uncommon, which is a person that doesn't believe in deities, and claims some knowledge basis as to why they think they don't.
3. An agnostic theist, a person that does believe in a deity/deities, but claims no knowledge basis for it.
4. A gnostic theist, which is a person that believes in a deity/deities, and claims some knowledge basis as to why they do.

People in layman's terms often refer to themselves as agnostic to avoid confrontation, and over time it has been associated with a lack of belief due to the fact that while it is very common for an atheist to be agnostic, it is far less common for a theist to be agnostic or claim to be such.

Carl Sagan, and he was referring to the fact that technology could be so advanced compared to our own as to appear like magic to us, not that it would be one and the same with magic. Like how, perhaps, a person from the Middle ages would view smart phones.

 

[Ken Behrens]

You believe everything that comes out of hollywood?

Of course not. Read it again. The character in the movie had a fingerprint that was made for him by the technicians who make props for the movie. That finger print did not come from a finger.