Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
28 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,948 Year: 21,984/19,786 Month: 547/1,834 Week: 47/500 Day: 5/42 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why "YEC"/Fundamentalist Creationism is BAD for America
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


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: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


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

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


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

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 49 of 238 (711434)
11-18-2013 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Theodoric
11-16-2013 11:23 PM


marc9000 writes:

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.

quote:
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

http://notrickszone.com/...urning-nasa-into-a-laughing-stock

and

http://www.americanthinker.com/...gainst_global_warming.html

quote:
It takes a lot of courage. Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.

Because science has become political. There's way more power and money in shouting down religion than there is in actually doing science.

Also;

http://en.wikipedia.org/.../The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 11-16-2013 11:23 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 11-18-2013 9:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Theodoric, posted 11-18-2013 9:30 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 12:34 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 50 of 238 (711435)
11-18-2013 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
11-16-2013 8:32 PM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
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.

Evidence includes written history. The scientific community obviously chooses to sometimes ignore or replace written history when it clashes with a proclamation of the past that science wishes to make. There's not always objective empirical evidence for every question about reality. The time has come to realize that science has been taken over by political special interests. It's no longer a "disinterested pursuit of knowledge", and needs to be policed for what it has become.

marc9000 writes:

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.

I don’t think anyone seriously believes that the U.S. is getting more and more religious, it’s actually getting more and more secular, Every statistic shows it. Statistics also show that some new, BAD things are happening, in a perfect correlation with religiousity going down, such as increased drug use, legalized gambling, less productivity etc.. Co-incidence, according the scientific community probably, but some are thankful that they’re not completely in charge of political decisions.

The declaration of independence is not the constitution.

But it’s what the constitution is based on. I know the extreme left doesn't agree, as don't many non U.S. residents. Are you from the U.S? Some participating in this thread are, some aren’t. Some don’t have their location listed by their name, you being one. When I see a non-religious, non resident of the U.S. claim that weakening religion in the U.S. would be good for it, I wonder if it could be because they’d love to see the U.S. brought down to the level of their own country.

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

The words “stupid, ignorant, insance, wicked are sophisticated scientific information?

There are pawns of large corporations who are paid to disagree

Oh, and there are no pawns in the scientific community who aren’t paid by the special interests of atheism and liberalism?

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.

Now all we need for a scientific community takeover of the political process is for it to become increasingly obvious to the general public.

If it were real history, not make believe tea-party history, you might find that we know more facts than you do.

Here is link showing the results of a survey taken to find out how scientifically literate tea party members can be. At least he was honest enough to report his (surprising to him) findings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2013 8:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2013 2:49 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 7:53 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 57 by Theodoric, posted 11-19-2013 10:00 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-19-2013 2:15 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 63 of 238 (711588)
11-20-2013 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
11-16-2013 8:53 PM


marc9000 writes:

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?

No, the first step would be to make sure they know that science isn't the only source of knowledge, that when the U.S. was founded, and it was being determined what would be good or bad for it, that science had very little to do with it. Teaching them how to think, not what to think, as one example, would be to make sure they understand what Federalist Paper #10 was about, including the definition of what a 'faction' is.

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.

That's for sure, if we give in to atheist, liberal, global warming factions, all the irreversible problems it is sure to cause could have been avoided if only those who allowed it to happen had known something about the tyrannies of history.

marc9000 writes:

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?

No, history shows that it did. I'm not sure if the scientific community is attempting to revise that or not, however. If they are, it shouldn't be taught as fact.

That germs don't cause disease?

That's not controversial.

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.

I'm sure most atheists/liberals in the scientific community consider any discussion about U.S. financial problems to be "drivel" because most of them don't have even a high school level knowledge of economics.

But a quick course on critical thinking would achieve that, it needn't be at the expense of teaching them scientific facts.

Of course not, I'm sure atheist liberal courses on critical thinking would include nothing more than science, and have little to do with history, economics, morals, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2013 8:53 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 11-20-2013 3:42 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2013 8:51 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2013 10:38 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 64 of 238 (711592)
11-20-2013 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Theodoric
11-18-2013 9:30 PM


Not climate scientists.

Again not climate scientists.

Climate scientists aren't completely in charge of U.S. political decisions, and their opinions of what is bad or good for the U.S. is of minor importance.

Do you read things you post?

Of course, if they didn't have information of the special interests that opposed them, I wouldn't think they'd have much credibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Theodoric, posted 11-18-2013 9:30 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 11-20-2013 5:29 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 65 of 238 (711593)
11-20-2013 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tangle
11-19-2013 2:49 AM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
The words 'science', 'atheist' and 'liberal' are not synonyms. Your conspiracy paranoia is telling.

The tone of the O/P is loaded with all three. Only those who are completely blinded by all three wouldn't be able to see it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 11-19-2013 2:49 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-20-2013 3:53 PM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 67 of 238 (711597)
11-20-2013 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
11-19-2013 7:53 AM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
History is evidence of what someone wrote, and does not necessarily represent truth. It is anecdotal evidence rather than objective empirical evidence. When it is contradicted by objective empirical evidence it is discarded.

You use the word "empirical" as if it's a foolproof, scientific only term. Let's see what dictionary.com has to say about the word;

1)derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2)depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.

3)provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

Particularly regarding #2, the tyrants of the religions of 250 years ago could correctly say the evidence of their religion was empirical.

marc9000 writes:

... There's not always objective empirical evidence for every question about reality. The time has come to realize that science has been taken over by political special interests. It's no longer a "disinterested pursuit of knowledge", and needs to be policed for what it has become.

Says you who desperately wants to run science according to religious beliefs (see On The Limits of Human Talent) and force it to comply with your opinion/beliefs.

Says you who desperately wants to run U.S. politics according to atheist/liberal beliefs, and not one other scientific poster on these forums has questioned you on that so far. You're not going to answer my question about where you're from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 7:53 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2013 9:25 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2013 10:28 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 69 of 238 (711601)
11-20-2013 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Theodoric
11-19-2013 10:00 AM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
I have stated this before, but will reiterate again, you really should read these things you find through Google (I suggest DuckDuckGo, no tracking). Many things you use as a reference, like this, don't actually support what you claim. You should read both of the posts by Professor Kahane. If you understand them you wont think they are in any way supportive of your position.

They always support what I claim, just because there is opposition to them doesn't make them invalid. The good professor probably got contacted by someone in control of his job, or his life, telling him to get busy and fix his mistake, if he knows what's good for him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Theodoric, posted 11-19-2013 10:00 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 11-20-2013 5:31 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1036
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 70 of 238 (711602)
11-20-2013 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by New Cat's Eye
11-20-2013 3:53 PM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
Um, the OP self-proclaims himself to be a deist...

There is often a lot of difference between what someone claims himself to be, and what he writes. But todays deists don't show themselves to be any different from atheists anyway. Very little similarity between todays deists and those few who were involved in U.S. founding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-20-2013 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-20-2013 4:24 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 11-20-2013 5:32 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019