Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 71 (9014 total)
37 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK (3 members, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,087 Year: 13,835/23,288 Month: 27/326 Week: 47/92 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why "YEC"/Fundamentalist Creationism is BAD for America
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6395
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 32 of 238 (711219)
11-15-2013 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dawn Bertot
11-15-2013 5:04 PM


Creation
Hi Dawn,

Dawn Bertot writes:

Perhaps you could elucidate and extrapolate this point. Why does a young earth perspective fall short in teaching what the Bible teaches

The universe and earth are only 6,000 years old. The Bible in no place teaches the earth is only 6,000 years old.

The man formed from the dust of the ground before any life forms of any kind existed and the mankind created male and female at the same time after all other life forms existed are the same man.

I will stop there but if you want to discuss it more start a thread and I will join in the discussion. Just post a heads up to me here or send me an email it is listed in my profile.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2013 5:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6395
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 33 of 238 (711220)
11-15-2013 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
11-15-2013 9:41 PM


Re: Creation
Hi CS,

CS writes:

false dichotomy

What is the third option?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-15-2013 9:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 2:51 PM ICANT has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 34 of 238 (711222)
11-15-2013 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Coyote
11-15-2013 9:38 PM


Get Texas out of Textbooks
Texas Creationism: Big Shootout Next Week

Yes, but we should also get Texas out of textbooks -- the National Science Foundation should be in charge of evaluating science textbooks. Having ANY political group make decisions about the science in science textbooks is just a ludicrously stupid idea.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : subT


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2013 9:38 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 35 of 238 (711278)
11-16-2013 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
11-10-2013 6:46 PM


In this thread I propose to discuss why "creationism" in general, and "Young Earth Creationism (YEC)" in particular are BAD for the US.

There are differing opinions among U.S. residents concerning what they would like to see the U.S. do, or become. So there would be differing opinions on what could be "bad" for the U.S.

Reason #1: It interferes with the proper education of young people, both in terms of rational thinking and in terms of scientific literacy.

Your opening statement only seeks to further eliminate something from education. Shouldn't education be about teaching students how to think, not what to think? By teaching them a broad spectrum of an issue, even the controversial ones? The creation issue was involved in science education at least somewhat more 50 years ago than it has been in the last couple of decades. The U.S. government is having a much harder time paying its bills now than it was 50 years ago.

The U.S didn't become what it is today, either by accident, or by a scientific knowledge that was superior to the rest of the world. It became what it is largely because of a whole host of knowledge, (history of human nature, desire of personal liberty, etc.) all of which had little or nothing to do with science. What the U.S. has accomplished up to now, is largely taken for granted, both within and without the U.S.

Reason #2: It interferes with the supposedly informed behavior of elected officials, at the local, state and national levels, both in terms of rational thinking and in terms of scientific literacy.

Interferes? Liberty and limited government are built around the concept "endowed by their creator".

Anyone who claims to believe otherwise is, to borrow from Dawkin's, either

[snipped childish drivel from Dawkins]

Dawkins isn't from the U.S. Though he does seem to increasingly be the premier spokesman for the three things that this O/P of yours is about; scientific study, militant atheism, and extreme political liberalism.

It seems rather obvious to me that any teaching in schools that is based on stupid, ignorant, misinformed, deluded, insane or malicious information is bad education, leading to misinformed or deluded students at best.

But it also should be obvious to you that the U.S. was at least partially FOUNDED on what Dawkins goes into childish rants about. I would hope that would make it obvious to many that Dawkins opinions on U.S. politics mean absolutely nothing.

Symptomatic of this in the US is the degree of Climate Change Denial by members of congress, based on false beliefs that are interfering with rational action regarding this pending massive change to the world as a whole.

There are climate scientists all over the world who disagree with the atheist, liberal view of global warming, and have written articles and books about it. It's not good for the U.S. to shield students from these other points of view. Even if students are indoctrinated with only the correct conclusions on current issues, hearing only one side does nothing to prepare future adults to think for themselves on issues that will be important to U.S. survival that will be prominent later in U.S. existence.

Perhaps there should be a scientific literacy test for government representatives ...

Or perhaps a history lesson, not only for government representatives, but for politically militant members of the scientific community.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2013 6:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2013 8:21 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2013 8:32 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2013 8:53 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 11-16-2013 11:23 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 47 by Tangle, posted 11-17-2013 3:36 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 36 of 238 (711280)
11-16-2013 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Stile
11-11-2013 10:38 AM


Re: Bad YECs, bad!
Ideas and concepts are adjusted to work with all the information we can obtain.
This way you'll never, ever end up in a situation where you feel embarrassed about being wrong.
Being wrong just means you haven't received the information yet... therefore you never had the chance to update your concepts about the matter.

Learning ends when you get all the information. About everything. Everywhere. At all times.
...good luck with that.

All the O/P was about was eliminating something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Stile, posted 11-11-2013 10:38 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2013 8:35 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 37 of 238 (711282)
11-16-2013 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
11-16-2013 7:53 PM


Shouldn't education be about teaching students how to think, not what to think? By teaching them a broad spectrum of an issue, even the controversial ones?

The problem with this is that religion does just the opposite.

Religion does not want people who think, it wants people who believe without the need for evidence. Religion requires people who will accept being told what to think.

Go into any fundamentalist church and bring up anything that is not accepted dogma and see what kind of reception you get. (In the old days, this would have got you burned at the stake!)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 11-16-2013 7:53 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by marc9000, posted 11-16-2013 8:30 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1151
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 38 of 238 (711284)
11-16-2013 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coyote
11-16-2013 8:21 PM


The problem with this is that religion does just the opposite.

False. Religion figured prominently in U.S. foundings.

Religion does not want people who think, it wants people who believe without the need for evidence. Religion requires people who will accept being told what to think.

So does atheism, so do proponents of global warming.

Go into any fundamentalist church and bring up anything that is not accepted dogma and see what kind of reception you get.

Just like going into science without Darwinist dogma?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2013 8:21 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 238 (711285)
11-16-2013 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
11-16-2013 7:53 PM


another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
... Shouldn't education be about teaching students how to think, not what to think? ...

Indeed, education in logic and being able to form proper valid conclusions from objective empirical evidence is the foundation for learning to deal with hokus-pokus, misrepresentation, hype and falsehoods.

Learning how to form rational conclusions with an open mind while remaining skeptical of any claims that have no supporting evidence.

... even the controversial ones? ...

Curiously ...

There is NO controversy among the science disciplines that science is based on objective empirical evidence no matter where the conclusions lead.

There is NO real controversy among geologists that the earth is old, very old, over 4.5 billion years old. People who claim there is a controversy are those who are deluded by irrational thought and conclusion not based on evidence.

There is NO real controversy among climatologists and geneticists that there was no world wide flood and that climate change is happening. People who claim there is a controversy are those who are deluded by irrational thought and conclusion not based on evidence.

There is NO real controversy among biologists that evolution explains the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the living world around us. People who claim there is a controversy are those who are deluded by irrational thought and conclusion not based on evidence.

... The creation issue was involved in science education at least somewhat more 50 years ago than it has been in the last couple of decades. ...

And (even if true, which I doubt) it is never too late to stop going down the wrong road. There were many things that were taught that are now known to be false or wicked. They used to teach that slavery, segregation, that women's place was in the home, etc etc etc.

That it was taught does not make it true, it just means that mistakes were made, mistakes that we can correct.

The U.S didn't become what it is today, either by accident, or by a scientific knowledge that was superior to the rest of the world. It became what it is largely because of a whole host of knowledge, (history of human nature, desire of personal liberty, etc.) all of which had little or nothing to do with science. What the U.S. has accomplished up to now, is largely taken for granted, both within and without the U.S

Because a rational logical base was used, one that challenged beliefs and opinions, one that proceeded with an open mind to change, rather than a clinging to the past and old ideas.

Interferes? Liberty and limited government are built around the concept "endowed by their creator".

The declaration of independence is not the constitution.

quote:
... and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, ...

The god referenced in the declaration is "nature's god" -- the deist god. Deists believe that you use education and knowledge to find out what you can, not to limit what you should think or know.

Dawkins isn't from the U.S. Though he does seem to increasingly be the premier spokesman for the three things that this O/P of yours is about; scientific study, militant atheism, and extreme political liberalism.

But it also should be obvious to you that the U.S. was at least partially FOUNDED on what Dawkins goes into childish rants about. I would hope that would make it obvious to many that Dawkins opinions on U.S. politics mean absolutely nothing.

Completely irrelevant to the argument -- attack the argument not the bearer of information that disturbs you.

The US was founded on freedom of ALL beliefs -- as clearly dictated in the constitution -- rather than on any particular set, and any belief otherwise is self-delusion.

There are climate scientists all over the world who disagree with the atheist, liberal view of global warming, and have written articles and books about it. It's not good for the U.S. to shield students from these other points of view. Even if students are indoctrinated with only the correct conclusions on current issues, hearing only one side does nothing to prepare future adults to think for themselves on issues that will be important to U.S. survival that will be prominent later in U.S. existence.

There are pawns of large corporations who are paid to disagree. The predominant consensus of over 90% of climate scientists is that climate change is due to human sources, mostly pollution from large corporations.

This number is growing, as it becomes increasingly obvious that climate change is happening.

Or perhaps a history lesson, not only for government representatives, but for politically militant members of the scientific community.

If it were real history, not make believe tea-party history, you might find that we know more facts than you do. Getting a PhD at a university is not just science education, and it is certainly more than what we get in high school.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 11-16-2013 7:53 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 11-18-2013 8:30 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 238 (711286)
11-16-2013 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by marc9000
11-16-2013 7:56 PM


Re: Bad YECs, bad!
All the O/P was about was eliminating something.

Eliminating the bonds and false ideas that hold back learning.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by marc9000, posted 11-16-2013 7:56 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 41 of 238 (711287)
11-16-2013 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
11-16-2013 7:53 PM


Shouldn't education be about teaching students how to think, not what to think?

Could you make this proposal more concrete? For example, instead of teaching them the periodic table, we should do what? Teach them the scientific method and give them some boxes of matter, let them figure it out?

The benefit of education is that we do not personally have to repeat the process of discovery that took our species thousands of years to accomplish. If we did then even the smartest among us would probably get no further than the Late Neolithic. "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

By teaching them a broad spectrum of an issue, even the controversial ones?

So we should teach them, what, that the Holocaust didn't happen? That germs don't cause disease? That Bush planned 9/11? There's your controversy.

As for the "broad spectrum", perhaps you could give some idea of how this is to be achieved, once again flesh out your ideas. Is the teacher meant to stand in front of the class saying: "The Holocaust happened, no it didn't, yes it did, no it didn't"?

The creation issue was involved in science education at least somewhat more 50 years ago than it has been in the last couple of decades. The U.S. government is having a much harder time paying its bills now than it was 50 years ago.

There is something to be said for teaching students "how to think" which is that they'd be too ashamed to put forward drivel like that as an argument. But a quick course on critical thinking would achieve that, it needn't be at the expense of teaching them scientific facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 11-16-2013 7:53 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 3:31 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 238 (711288)
11-16-2013 9:14 PM


Neil
Creationist teaching

A sample of bad teaching.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2013 9:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2013 9:27 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 43 of 238 (711289)
11-16-2013 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
11-16-2013 9:14 PM


Re: Neil
Surely that's satire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2013 9:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 44 of 238 (711290)
11-16-2013 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
11-16-2013 9:14 PM


Re: Neil
Is that real or a Poe?

It's pretty tough to tell nowdays.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2013 9:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2013 9:53 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 238 (711293)
11-16-2013 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Coyote
11-16-2013 9:27 PM


Re: Neil
This, on the other hand, is for real.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2013 9:27 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 46 of 238 (711294)
11-16-2013 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
11-16-2013 7:53 PM


There are climate scientists all over the world who disagree with the atheist, liberal view of global warming, and have written articles and books about it.

Please present some of these.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 11-16-2013 7:53 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 11-18-2013 8:15 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020