Creationism in Public Schools

[North German Realm]

I thought ID was just simply about God creating everything but being vague about how Je does it, so He could do it either as described in the Bible or guided the evolution process.

It depends what you mean by Intelligent Design. The Intelligent Design movement is definitely that, but there's also a philosophical position often called Intelligent Design which basically means that natural processes were predetermined by a creator/uncaused cause.

I mean that position is also unscientific and wrong, even if it is an interesting philosophical position.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It depends what you mean by Intelligent Design. The Intelligent Design movement is definitely that, but there's also a philosophical position often called Intelligent Design which basically means that natural processes were predetermined by a creator/uncaused cause.

I mean that position is also unscientific and wrong, even if it is an interesting philosophical position.

Just because it's unscientific doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, just that it's untestable, as many philosophical positions are.

(note: it's untestable because we have nothing to compare it to, which is actually why I specifically brought up probability in my last post, because I have a philosophical problem with the idea of probability).

[Onitsha Empire]

Am I the only one who believes that this discussion will never go anywhere? Atheists are just assuming atheism without stating it. Christians are just assuming Christianity without stating it. Muslims are just assuming Islam without stating it.

The belief of Creationism is downstream from religious views. If there is a religion that believes that all humans were mice in a past life you aren't going to disprove it by comparing the population of humans and mice.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Am I the only one who believes that this discussion will never go anywhere?

There is no real discussion. Evolution happens, the only question is a philosophical one about whether evolution is truly random or predetermined, which belongs in a philosophy class, not a science class.

[Onitsha Empire]

Am I the only one who believes that this discussion will never go anywhere?

There is no real discussion. Evolution happens, the only question is a philosophical one about whether evolution is truly random or predetermined, which belongs in a philosophy class, not a science class.

Uh..even that needs to be debated. Young Earth Creationists do exist. If people just assume a stance dogmatically it is often impossible to fully disprove as they can always resort to "we can't trust our senses" etc.

[United Muscovite Nations]

There is no real discussion. Evolution happens, the only question is a philosophical one about whether evolution is truly random or predetermined, which belongs in a philosophy class, not a science class.

Uh..even that needs to be debated. Young Earth Creationists do exist.

Just because they exist doesn't mean they need to be debated. Young Earth Creationism isn't a scientific position, it's a theological position, and even then it's one that isn't very solid.

[Onitsha Empire]

Uh..even that needs to be debated. Young Earth Creationists do exist.

Just because they exist doesn't mean they need to be debated. Young Earth Creationism isn't a scientific position, it's a theological position, and even then it's one that isn't very solid.

YEC IS a specific claim about nature. As such it needs to be tested..and I don't think it is likely to be factually accurate.

[North German Realm]

I mean that position is also unscientific and wrong, even if it is an interesting philosophical position.

Just because it's unscientific doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, just that it's untestable, as many philosophical positions are.

(note: it's untestable because we have nothing to compare it to, which is actually why I specifically brought up probability in my last post, because I have a philosophical problem with the idea of probability).

It's not necessarily wrong because it's unscientific. It's unscientific because it's untestable. It's wrong because given what we know of evolutionary process, evolutionary biology, and biology in general, if we start on the premises that an actor was responsible in part -or fully- for the events, that actor was definitely not intelligent.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Just because it's unscientific doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong, just that it's untestable, as many philosophical positions are.

(note: it's untestable because we have nothing to compare it to, which is actually why I specifically brought up probability in my last post, because I have a philosophical problem with the idea of probability).

It's not necessarily wrong because it's unscientific. It's unscientific because it's untestable. It's wrong because given what we know of evolutionary process, evolutionary biology, and biology in general, if we start on the premises that an actor was responsible in part -or fully- for the events, that actor was definitely not intelligent.

Not necessarily, it could just mean that it was the best of all possible outcomes, or, rather, that it was the only possible outcome.

[Ifreann]

Am I the only one who believes that this discussion will never go anywhere? Atheists are just assuming atheism without stating it. Christians are just assuming Christianity without stating it. Muslims are just assuming Islam without stating it.

The belief of Creationism is downstream from religious views. If there is a religion that believes that all humans were mice in a past life you aren't going to disprove it by comparing the population of humans and mice.

This discussion has already been settled. Creationism isn't taught in public schools.

[Onitsha Empire]

Am I the only one who believes that this discussion will never go anywhere? Atheists are just assuming atheism without stating it. Christians are just assuming Christianity without stating it. Muslims are just assuming Islam without stating it.

The belief of Creationism is downstream from religious views. If there is a religion that believes that all humans were mice in a past life you aren't going to disprove it by comparing the population of humans and mice.

This discussion has already been settled. Creationism isn't taught in public schools.

That's just a political settlement. Creationism still exists.

[North German Realm]

It's not necessarily wrong because it's unscientific. It's unscientific because it's untestable. It's wrong because given what we know of evolutionary process, evolutionary biology, and biology in general, if we start on the premises that an actor was responsible in part -or fully- for the events, that actor was definitely not intelligent.

Not necessarily, it could just mean that it was the best of all possible outcomes, or, rather, that it was the only possible outcome.

That's not what "Intelligent Design" is though. I mean, I don't agree it was "The only" or "The best" possible outcome, just that it's the one that happened in a series of very improbable random events, but if you go by the assumption that the stuff happened by a guided hand and not at the random, then "the best possible outcome" statement becomes a moot point.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not necessarily, it could just mean that it was the best of all possible outcomes, or, rather, that it was the only possible outcome.

That's not what "Intelligent Design" is though. I mean, I don't agree it was "The only" or "The best" possible outcome, just that it's the one that happened in a series of very improbable random events, but if you go by the assumption that the stuff happened by a guided hand and not at the random, then "the best possible outcome" statement becomes a moot point.

That exact reasoning is the thing I have a problem with. I think the idea of randomness is on pretty flimsy ground:

The idea of randomness is only coherent if we fail to account for that all events are in a series, and not independent. Because they occur in a series, all events (except for first events) are caused by prior events. Therefore, the event that has probability is predetermined in its outcome by the previous event in the series
Moreover, randomness can't be truly observed because we have nothing to compare it to, because we cannot observe alternative possibilities
Events, therefore, only appear to be random because we do not have the ability to predict them, not because they are truly random

[Page]

The evolution of humans and the beginning of the universe are two entirely different things. Evolution is a fact, regardless of whether a god created the universe or not.

[North German Realm]

The evolution of humans and the beginning of the universe are two entirely different things. Evolution is a fact, regardless of whether a god created the universe or not.

Sure, but that a god (or really, any rational or non-rational actor) influenced, caused, or guided it is not a fact -it's in fact about as far from a scientifically credible statement as a statement can be.

[Ifreann]

This discussion has already been settled. Creationism isn't taught in public schools.

That's just a political settlement. Creationism still exists.

So what?

[Salandriagado]

There is no real discussion. Evolution happens, the only question is a philosophical one about whether evolution is truly random or predetermined, which belongs in a philosophy class, not a science class.

Uh..even that needs to be debated. Young Earth Creationists do exist. If people just assume a stance dogmatically it is often impossible to fully disprove as they can always resort to "we can't trust our senses" etc.

The fact that morons exist does not mean that there's a debate to be had.

[Salandriagado]

That's not what "Intelligent Design" is though. I mean, I don't agree it was "The only" or "The best" possible outcome, just that it's the one that happened in a series of very improbable random events, but if you go by the assumption that the stuff happened by a guided hand and not at the random, then "the best possible outcome" statement becomes a moot point.

That exact reasoning is the thing I have a problem with. I think the idea of randomness is on pretty flimsy ground:

The idea of randomness is only coherent if we fail to account for that all events are in a series, and not independent. Because they occur in a series, all events (except for first events) are caused by prior events. Therefore, the event that has probability is predetermined in its outcome by the previous event in the series
Moreover, randomness can't be truly observed because we have nothing to compare it to, because we cannot observe alternative possibilities
Events, therefore, only appear to be random because we do not have the ability to predict them, not because they are truly random

Erm, no. Quantum indeterminacy is fundamental, and is actually truly random.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That exact reasoning is the thing I have a problem with. I think the idea of randomness is on pretty flimsy ground:

The idea of randomness is only coherent if we fail to account for that all events are in a series, and not independent. Because they occur in a series, all events (except for first events) are caused by prior events. Therefore, the event that has probability is predetermined in its outcome by the previous event in the series
Moreover, randomness can't be truly observed because we have nothing to compare it to, because we cannot observe alternative possibilities
Events, therefore, only appear to be random because we do not have the ability to predict them, not because they are truly random

Erm, no. Quantum indeterminacy is fundamental, and is actually truly random.

How can randomness even be proven?

[Onitsha Empire]

Uh..even that needs to be debated. Young Earth Creationists do exist. If people just assume a stance dogmatically it is often impossible to fully disprove as they can always resort to "we can't trust our senses" etc.

The fact that morons exist does not mean that there's a debate to be had.

And..they have more kids, indoctrinate their kids in their views and are more united than others. Viola the percentage of humans who actually agree with them may INCREASE not because their views are factually accurate but simply because they are better at reproduction and coercion..

An atheistic universe does not have to select for belief in atheism.

Evolution does not select for knowledge about evolution. If anything it selects against such knowledge..Darwin is an anti-God in the sense that whoever has discovered his existence has their name removed from the Book of Life.

[The Alma Mater]

Am I the only one who believes that this discussion will never go anywhere? Atheists are just assuming atheism without stating it. Christians are just assuming Christianity without stating it. Muslims are just assuming Islam without stating it.

The belief of Creationism is downstream from religious views. If there is a religion that believes that all humans were mice in a past life you aren't going to disprove it by comparing the population of humans and mice.

But I would just like people to be HONEST about it.
What you see here is people claiming that they want to "teach both options". But what they mean is that they want THEIR belief to be taught - not that two randomly selected out of the millions of options that exist are chosen.

In fact, they cowardly scramble to ignore the fact that there even are more than two options.

[The Discipled]

I think creation and evolution should both be taught equally so students in public schools can choose for themselves what they believe. Although it would be unconstitutional if only the Christian perspective is taught, other religions could also be taught.

This is exactly how to present a false dichotomy - a religious belief, and one of scientific fact are not of equal standing, and for you to present them as such is one of a false perspective.

School is not a place for students to "believe" things, you are as fruitful teaching ancient German mysticism as you would be teaching creationism - it is a discredited idea supported by apologists. The education system is a place for teaching concrete facts, creationism is not a fact - is never has been, and should be placed nowhere near on the same bar as evolution.

By the constitution - teaching one religious perspective means you either teach every, and all religious perspectives, or none at all, meaning if you allow this gateway to open, muslims, catholics, taoists, scientologists or any classification of a "religion" would have enough vindication and reasoning as you would. Of course this becomes illogical - since it is impossible to teach thousands of different religious perspectives.

[Geneviev]

Am I the only one who believes that this discussion will never go anywhere? Atheists are just assuming atheism without stating it. Christians are just assuming Christianity without stating it. Muslims are just assuming Islam without stating it.

The belief of Creationism is downstream from religious views. If there is a religion that believes that all humans were mice in a past life you aren't going to disprove it by comparing the population of humans and mice.

But I would just like people to be HONEST about it.
What you see here is people claiming that they want to "teach both options". But what they mean is that they want THEIR belief to be taught - not that two randomly selected out of the millions of options that exist are chosen.

In fact, they cowardly scramble to ignore the fact that there even are more than two options.

That's not quite true. I support teaching more than my beliefs and evolution. All major world religions should be taught.

[Salandriagado]

Erm, no. Quantum indeterminacy is fundamental, and is actually truly random.

How can randomness even be proven?

See here.

[Onitsha Empire]

Am I the only one who believes that this discussion will never go anywhere? Atheists are just assuming atheism without stating it. Christians are just assuming Christianity without stating it. Muslims are just assuming Islam without stating it.

The belief of Creationism is downstream from religious views. If there is a religion that believes that all humans were mice in a past life you aren't going to disprove it by comparing the population of humans and mice.

But I would just like people to be HONEST about it.
What you see here is people claiming that they want to "teach both options". But what they mean is that they want THEIR belief to be taught - not that two randomly selected out of the millions of options that exist are chosen.

In fact, they cowardly scramble to ignore the fact that there even are more than two options.

Welcome to human treachery. When you see enough you won't give a shit any more just like me.

If you give people a carefully hedged and good argument they don't even read it. Instead BOTH SIDES will emotionally attack you fiercely out of tribalism for not COMPLETELY agreeing with them. On the other hand if you give them partisan trash at least one mob will defend you and REALLY like it.