Creationism in Public Schools

[The Alma Mater]

not even christianity lmao. the history of christian philosophy is full of people grappling with the topic

Until there are actual Christian scientists who look for actual evidence that their God is real, it is still blind faith

If they look for evidence their God is real, they are not doing science.
Doing science means looking for evidence their God is bogus. Science works by negating hypotheses.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

It is no caricature. Faith is by definition blind, for varying uses of the term.

You apparently have never met a Reformed person.

I have. They’re worse.

[Salandriagado]

not even christianity lmao. the history of christian philosophy is full of people grappling with the topic

Until there are actual Christian scientists who look for actual evidence that their God is real, it is still blind faith

You've got that backwards. It's blind faith until there are actual Christian scientists who look for actual evidence that their God is not real.

[New Legland]

Geneviev, why do you even believe in YEC if you've admitted both that your religion doesn't require you to do so and that the evidence for it (not even for it from what you've shown, just against evolution) pales in comparison to that for evolution?

[Rojava Free State]

Until there are actual Christian scientists who look for actual evidence that their God is real, it is still blind faith

You've got that backwards. It's blind faith until there are actual Christian scientists who look for actual evidence that their God is not real.

Same thing as far as I'm concerned. Until you find proof that God is out there, ima assume he isn't

[Rojava Free State]

You apparently have never met a Reformed person.

I have. They’re worse.

Tfw you think Christians who say gays are going to hell aren't real Christians and god loves us all

[Argotera]

Until there are actual Christian scientists who look for actual evidence that their God is real, it is still blind faith

If they look for evidence their God is real, they are not doing science.
Doing science means looking for evidence their God is bogus. Science works by negating hypotheses.

Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". So "doing science" is observing and experimenting. It also doesn't work by negating hypotheses, but by testing them — and either proving or disproving them.

Also, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Believing in creationism does not preclude learning about and studying the natural world.

[Neanderthaland]

If they look for evidence their God is real, they are not doing science.
Doing science means looking for evidence their God is bogus. Science works by negating hypotheses.

Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". So "doing science" is observing and experimenting. It also doesn't work by negating hypotheses, but by testing them — and either proving or disproving them.

Also, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Believing in creationism does not preclude learning about and studying the natural world.

Christian Scientists and Creationists are not, for a moment, willing to seriously entertain the possibility that they might be wrong. Results that to not match their preferred conclusion are ignored or hand-waved away. This is the most unscientific mentality conceivable. Science and religion are only "not mutually exclusive" insofar as some people are able to hold both ideas without ever letting them interact with each other. Where they do interact, they annihilate each other.

[Tekania]

Its' not impossible to be a creationist and study natural science.... It's just impossible to remain a creationist and accept what the natural world demonstrates. Believing in creationism requires rejecting demonstrable components of geology, biology, paleontology and nuclear physics.

[Argotera]

Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". So "doing science" is observing and experimenting. It also doesn't work by negating hypotheses, but by testing them — and either proving or disproving them.

Also, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Believing in creationism does not preclude learning about and studying the natural world.

Christian Scientists and Creationists are not, for a moment, willing to seriously entertain the possibility that they might be wrong. Results that to not match their preferred conclusion are ignored or hand-waved away. This is the most unscientific mentality conceivable.

Yes, however the same could be said for atheist scientists.

Science and religion are only "not mutually exclusive" insofar as some people are able to hold both ideas without ever letting them interact with each other. Where they do interact, they annihilate each other.

How so?

[Neanderthaland]

Christian Scientists and Creationists are not, for a moment, willing to seriously entertain the possibility that they might be wrong. Results that to not match their preferred conclusion are ignored or hand-waved away. This is the most unscientific mentality conceivable.

Yes, however the same could be said for atheist scientists.

You could say that, but you'd generally be wrong. There's no requirement in atheism that you need to have faith, or can't change your mind.

This is basically just false equivalence. But sometimes the two sides are not equal. And this is one of those cases. Atheism is not a doctrine. Religion is.

Science and religion are only "not mutually exclusive" insofar as some people are able to hold both ideas without ever letting them interact with each other. Where they do interact, they annihilate each other.

How so?

Because religion requires faith, which is the belief in a proposition regardless of the state of the evidence. Science requires that belief be tested, which is explicitly anti-faith. I didn't think this needed explaining.

[Page]

Christian Scientists and Creationists are not, for a moment, willing to seriously entertain the possibility that they might be wrong. Results that to not match their preferred conclusion are ignored or hand-waved away. This is the most unscientific mentality conceivable.

Yes, however the same could be said for atheist scientists.

Science and religion are only "not mutually exclusive" insofar as some people are able to hold both ideas without ever letting them interact with each other. Where they do interact, they annihilate each other.

How so?

Science generally does not concern itself with the question of whether a god exists as it is untestable. Many are making the mistake of presenting a false dichotomy of godless evolution vs. creation.

Evolution is a fact regardless of whether there is a god or not.

[The Grims]

Christian Scientists and Creationists are not, for a moment, willing to seriously entertain the possibility that they might be wrong. Results that to not match their preferred conclusion are ignored or hand-waved away. This is the most unscientific mentality conceivable.

Yes, however the same could be said for atheist scientists.

But then they are not scientist. Science by definition requires one to attempt to discredit ones own beliefs. It is how the method works.

[Salandriagado]

You've got that backwards. It's blind faith until there are actual Christian scientists who look for actual evidence that their God is not real.

Same thing as far as I'm concerned. Until you find proof that God is out there, ima assume he isn't

Not at all the same: going out to find evidence to support your hypothesis is just glorified bullshitting. Going out to find evidence to disprove your hypotheses is actual science.

[Argotera]

Yes, however the same could be said for atheist scientists.

You could say that, but you'd generally be wrong. There's no requirement in atheism that you need to have faith, or can't change your mind.

This is basically just false equivalence. But sometimes the two sides are not equal. And this is one of those cases. Atheism is not a doctrine. Religion is.

How so?

Because religion requires faith, which is the belief in a proposition regardless of the state of the evidence. Science requires that belief be tested, which is explicitly anti-faith. I didn't think this needed explaining.

Atheism as a practice may not be a doctrine, but atheists certainly have faith. They ascribe and cling to the doctrine of "non-belief". And there's nowhere that says the religious can't change their minds.

Yes, science requires that belief be tested, but to say that atheist scientists are somehow unbiased is ridiculous. Here's a bit from this interesting article: https://creation.com/its-not-science
"Of course this [the scientific method], and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality1 and induction2. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized."

Everyone goes into science with their own biases, atheists notwithstanding.

But none of this should really matter, because science is still the study of the natural world, and an individual's faith should have no place in the testing of physical beliefs and assumptions about the world.

[Alvecia]

You could say that, but you'd generally be wrong. There's no requirement in atheism that you need to have faith, or can't change your mind.

This is basically just false equivalence. But sometimes the two sides are not equal. And this is one of those cases. Atheism is not a doctrine. Religion is.


Because religion requires faith, which is the belief in a proposition regardless of the state of the evidence. Science requires that belief be tested, which is explicitly anti-faith. I didn't think this needed explaining.

Atheism as a practice may not be a doctrine, but atheists certainly have faith. They ascribe and cling to the doctrine of "non-belief". And there's nowhere that says the religious can't change their minds.

Yes, science requires that belief be tested, but to say that atheist scientists are somehow unbiased is ridiculous. Here's a bit from this interesting article: https://creation.com/its-not-science
"Of course this [the scientific method], and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality1 and induction2. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized."

Everyone goes into science with their own biases, atheists notwithstanding.

But none of this should really matter, because science is still the study of the natural world, and an individual's faith should have no place in the testing of physical beliefs and assumptions about the world.

Faith is definitionally the belief in something regardless of the evidence. When there is no evidence to regard, you cannot accurately say that the belief is regardless of it.

[Hatterleigh]

Creationism isn't even part of the doctrine of any major religions. There are plenty of christians, muslims, etc. who believe in evolution. So no, it's not religious discrimination, it's discrimination of a belief that is derived from religion but not a tenet of it.

[Based Groyper]

Creationism is already taught in Public Schools in the form of Human Rights education.

[Argotera]

Yes, however the same could be said for atheist scientists.

How so?

Science generally does not concern itself with the question of whether a god exists as it is untestable. Many are making the mistake of presenting a false dichotomy of godless evolution vs. creation.

Agreed.

Evolution is a fact regardless of whether there is a god or not.

Evolution is not a fact. Could you please explain why it is thought of as such?

[Alvecia]

Evolution is a fact regardless of whether there is a god or not.

Evolution is not a fact. Could you please explain why it is thought of as such?

We've literally observed it happening in the lab and in the wild.

[Based Groyper]

Evolution isn't taught properly in Public Schools.

[The Alma Mater]

Evolution is not a fact. Could you please explain why it is thought of as such?

Because it is ? Offspring is not identical to the parents. Men are not identical to their fathers, women not identical to their mothers.
That is evolution.

Darwins theory examines what the result of that is over longer periods of time through natural selection.

[Argotera]

Evolution is not a fact. Could you please explain why it is thought of as such?

We've literally observed it happening in the lab and in the wild.

Please cite sources for it happening in the lab.

By "in the wild" are you referring to natural selection?

[Salandriagado]

You could say that, but you'd generally be wrong. There's no requirement in atheism that you need to have faith, or can't change your mind.

This is basically just false equivalence. But sometimes the two sides are not equal. And this is one of those cases. Atheism is not a doctrine. Religion is.


Because religion requires faith, which is the belief in a proposition regardless of the state of the evidence. Science requires that belief be tested, which is explicitly anti-faith. I didn't think this needed explaining.

Atheism as a practice may not be a doctrine, but atheists certainly have faith. They ascribe and cling to the doctrine of "non-belief".

Not true.

And there's nowhere that says the religious can't change their minds.

Except the literal dogma of the religion in question.

Yes, science requires that belief be tested, but to say that atheist scientists are somehow unbiased is ridiculous. Here's a bit from this interesting article: https://creation.com/its-not-science
"Of course this [the scientific method], and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality1 and induction2. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized."

Neither of those is an assumption: both are easily empirically verified. That article, like everything else on that fucking disaster of a website, is utter and complete bullshit.
Everyone goes into science with their own biases, atheists notwithstanding.

But none of this should really matter, because science is still the study of the natural world, and an individual's faith should have no place in the testing of physical beliefs and assumptions about the world.[/quote]

[Salandriagado]

Science generally does not concern itself with the question of whether a god exists as it is untestable. Many are making the mistake of presenting a false dichotomy of godless evolution vs. creation.

Agreed.

Evolution is a fact regardless of whether there is a god or not.

Evolution is not a fact. Could you please explain why it is thought of as such?

It absolutely is a fact. You can literally watch it happen. It's as much a fact as gravity.