BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:36 AM

That's an interesting aticle, Ed. I'd better declare my interest: I am a mathematician by training and degrees, and a scientist by nature. Probably the strongest 'flash memory' I have of primary school was when I was seven and we were given the exercise books for science and I remember how excited I felt and thinking this was when real education starts. We had to copy the first sentence from the blackboard - 'Science is the study of alive, dead and never-alive things. It is also about what happens to them.' So, I am scientifically-inclined 'in all my being'.

My daughter, on the other hand, is currently studying for an MA in Philosophy and is applying for PhDs even as I type. So while I have had no training in Philosophy I have had many, many hours of discussion with her (probably at least 130hrs, Bill D *smile*)

I hear the quotation that was given above quite often ("'God is dead', said Hitler's favourite philosopher, Nietzsche") and my usual response is to say that's interesting and ask them to tell me anything else Nietzsche said. The usual response is silence or burbling, which is a pity because Nietzsche is a particularly difficult philospher to summarise as his writings are often obscure and arguably self-contradictory in places. Unlike, say, Wittgenstein who tried to make his position as clear as possible, Nietzsche's writings often require a synthesis of his work to appreciate what he is driving at.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:14 AM

The Three Miracles (James Alan Farrell, 2001)
On occasion I have told people about my belief that mysticism is false, and for the most part people agree. Until I apply this belief to Christianity. I imagine that this is because most of the people I know are Christians, and if I applied it to Hinduism my Hindu friends would protest.

Those who protest will then say it must be terrible for me to live with such a lack of imagination or sense of wonder. They tell me it must be terrible to live without believing in miracles.

What is a miracle? If we define miracle as something that cannot happen then, it is true, miracles do not exist. If it cannot happen it has never happened. If it has happened, then it can happen and it is not a miracle.

There is another definition of miracle, however. That which is profound and effects life in a profound way.

I do believe in miracles, and to prove it I can name three miracles. These miracles are profound and glorious. Compared to them merely walking on water seems hardly miraculous, and certainly no great wonder. Furthermore I can prove that these miracles have happened.

Ladies and gentlemen, the three miracles:

The Universe exists
Life Exists
Intelligence Exists

We can chalk these up to a deity, or we can chalk them up to scientific quirks. Given the current lack of evidence, I would say it does not matter. If you feel you should thank God for these miracles, so be it. I will respect you for it.

At this time we do not understand these miracles or how any of them came about. On the other hand, research is being carried out at a feverish pace, and it seems likely that soon we will have answers on at least two of the three. But just because we can explain and even replicate the process by which these came about does not make them less profound or less glorious. Even after we can explain them they will still be miraculous.

For that matter, once one looks at the universe in this light it is fairly easy to see many lesser miracles, at least lesser compared to the three. Many of these we can now explain: Breathing, the beating of the heart and the reproductive cycle are examples. Another example is the miracle of evolution. This is a true wonder and immensely profound. Without it intelligence would not exists. Even though we can explain these, they are not less miraculous.
Source: http://pages.prodigy.net/j_alan/Philosophy/NavelContemplations.html

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 12:13 PM

Ed's Miracles:

The Universe exists

Well, the universe, for all we know, may exist because a number of factors lined up in a big coincidence which resulted in the Big Bang. Perhaps those factors have "failed" to line up billions of times and the universe we now find ourselves in is just the lucky one. No rules broken then that we know of. It's 14 million to one that my ticket will win the lottery jackpot, but even if I do win it there's no miracle. It's just a coincidence. I got no matches with my six numbers this week. The lineup between my numbers and the winning numbers is no more common than the line-up of numbers of someone who got all six right. Coincidence-wise, they come out equal. Much mathematical work has been done on coincidences, and far from being miracles, they're inevitable.
   
Life Exists

Every process that goes on inside a living thing has been, or will undoubtedly be, explained by resort to no more than the laws of physics. What's more, the planet has had four and a half billion years for myriad "experiments" in kicking off life to have occurred. You say life's a miracle. I could, with equal validity, declare that perhaps life is almost inevitable, given the conditions and raw materials on the planet (another lucky coincidence) and the time span available (the main thing that anti-evolutionists forget). No rules broken then, so no miracle.
   
Intelligence Exists

Well, we can discuss that when you can tell me what intelligence is. Hint: try to better than GfS's definition!

I'm perfectly up for calling things wonderful, beautiful, astonishing, marvellous, but let's not degrade the meaning of "miracle" when we have plenty of alternative words available for these superlative, non-miraculous phenomena. And none of those other things you mention, including evolution, needs any resort to explanations outside the laws of physics. Instead of calling them miracles, why not just marvel at what amazing stuff can be achieved by such ordinary, normal means?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:15 PM

"There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently"

Quite true... but as I'm sure Michael would agree, that has little to do with his 'philospher-ness'.

...and to Ed, in reply to "...there would be little discussion on many aspects of life, possibly yourself included, (humourous, or otherwise), or on Mudcat, if everyone was asked to adhere to that rule you just made up."

Methinks you miss my point... I never suggested one could not 'disagree' with philosophical arguments: philosophers disagree on subjects and construct new ideas all the time. What I was concerned with was the seeming trivializing of, as I said, "serious philosophy" as a useful pursuit.
And THAT means that there is a real and important difference between "serious philosophy" and generally intelligent 'speculating on stuff' from a layman's viewpoint, which is perfectly ok and what is done in 99+% of the discussions here. The point is, IN a layman's attempts, it is quite possible for him to make errors **of logical reasoning**, usually described by one of the informal fallacies. It does NOT automatically mean he is 'wrong', but merely that his reasoning is suspect...which 'may' cast doubt on his conclusion.

Thus, some of the objection to Kent and his YEC beliefs boil down to suggestions that he has resorted to some of the fallacies noted here, such as:

Begging the Question
Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Belief

and at the bottom of that page is the "Fallacy of Equivocation", which speaks to why I bother to challenge your remark about philosophy. It just seems to me that you are using a 'simplifed' definition of philosophy, and equivocating about what the word really means...and thus doing what I said and 'marginalizing' serious philosophy by making fun of the 'common notion' of what it does.


So...you see how much work it is to explicate & clarify a point when attempting to use 'formal' language? I do NOT expect all of us here to talk that way in casual debate, but it can become relevant when entire arguments are getting muddy because one group simply means something different from another group when using certain words. (such as 'stupid' when 'ignorant' is meant.) At such points, philosophy can be useful...even if the formal terms of it are not used. One can just say, "Hey... I thing we are talking about different things here...what do YOU mean by 'X'?"

Now,I have no idea if you or anyone else bothers to read long posts like this, but hey... there it is...just in case it helps someone at some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:16 PM

Steve Shaw, do you see this specific quotation from Ed T's post as wrong, or as degrading the very concept of "miracle" ?

"There is another definition of miracle, however. That which is profound and effects life in a profound way."

If not, why are you bickering with him point by point over what are simply elucidations of that premise?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:17 PM

Wow, Bill D, I now fully see how to make something non-complex, really complex. Good job :)

I believe my main point (at least one of them, I kinda forget how many there were now...but there likely weren't many) is that it is much easier to follow science advancements on one issue than philosophy (my statement of being debunked). I believe the person on the link I provided gave a better explanation of that than me.

My other point relates more to a personal experience I had years ago while in University, while taking about four philosophy courses, (one, btw, was the philosophy of science).

One class was dedicated to discussing whether there could be movement or not. After going through all the different historic philosophical attempts to prove whether one could move from point A to point B, or not (including Zeno's motion paradoxes, which may or may not have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction to this day), at the end of the class, quite puzzlingly, no person, including the Prof had any difficulty moving out of the room.... thus I personally observed the legible impact the discussion had on the class...that led me to what I amusingly alluded to in my earlier (and shorter) post.

I now admit, I should have avoided the temptation, to minimize the "scorn" (not a quote) past down upon me.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:49 PM

penny-thanks for the vote of confidence!
seething mass of violence;probably not but i know there have been occasions when i could easily have gone badly wrong and i suspect if not for love of God i would have rationalized my going ahead.

you obviously know much about geology and i wont attempt to debate that with you,knowing next to nothing about it myself.i,m sure you realize that i will choose the scientific theory that accords with my theology.i appreciate your trainig and interpretations of data inform you differently to creationist geologists interpretations.

don t-do we really have to go off topic.hopefully you will accept that whatever your views;for me,if the NT speaks clearly on a subject it clarifies an OT issue

ed and bill-thanks for helpful info.you will have to forgive my not reading philosophy deeply.
i would agree that giving thought to the issues of moral choices ought to lead to the conclusion that goodness is better[hope i read you correctly]problem is; who thinks deeply in the throes of temptation.even as a believer it,s not easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:10 PM

Steve Shaw, do you see this specific quotation from Ed T's post as wrong, or as degrading the very concept of "miracle" ?

"There is another definition of miracle, however. That which is profound and effects life in a profound way."

If not, why are you bickering with him point by point over what are simply elucidations of that premise?

My post was very constructive, without name-calling, bickering or anything else obnoxious. It's a discussion forum, froggie, and I don't agree with his points, therefore I put up a counter-argument, perfectly civilly. Are you OK with that, or are you one of these folks who gets automatically blinded by any post, on any topic, by someone whom you think might just not line themselves up with you? Arrogant sod!!

And, for the record, I don't agree with that other definition of "miracle" either, and I do believe I covered that in my post (which you seem not have read properly - try again). It's simple. There are other words in this amazing language of ours, plenty of them, to cover the amazing, the wondrous, the superb. Let's keep "miracle" for magic, exactly where it belongs. You really can't see the sub-plot here,can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:46 PM

I have no peobelm with a counter argument. And, yes it was respectful.

But, just to be clear, they were not my points to claim. I do wish I could write as well. But, I only posted the article made by another perso, of a higher mental calibre than me (IMO). What his purpose was, I cannot attest. Maybe a read over the rest of his site mwould releal it.

But, I just felt they were interesting to the topic and may stimulate debate, as they have. No sinister plot on my behalf.

I do not have a counter argument, to Steve, as to what a miracle should be called, as I rarely, if ever use the term. Though, I suspect others do, with different meanings.

Anyway, onward.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:53 PM

Ed T:

Your account of the lecture on Zeno's paradoxes sounded to me like a good example which separates 'serious philosophers' from 'people who attend philosphy lectures'. Zeno's claim (simplifying greatly) was that he had proved movement was an illusion. Now, a serious philospher would either accept the argument as true or false (or, in fact, one of several other possibilities, but let's not go into that now.) Let's assume they think the argument is correct and that movement is illusion. Why on earth should the illusion stop just because you recognised it? Most illusions don't - look at optical illusions for example. The 'illusion' of the professor walking out of the class raises not the slightest complication. What does, though, is why some illusions seem possible, but others - flying unaided through the air for example - appear impossible. Are there different types of illusions? And this is what a serious philosopher would be thinking about for the next few days, weeks, or whatever.

On the other hand, our student could think the argument was false, even self-evidently false. Then they would spend the next few days, weeks or whatever, trying to understand where the flaw in the plausible sounding argument was. (And the chances are, in this day and age, that that is why the department told you about it in the first place, unless it was a history of philosophy lecture.)

Someone who is just attending philosophy lectures, on the other hand, would go to the pub, gym or whatever, and not think about it deeply at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:59 PM

Well, Ed, as you posted it without comment I assumed you sort of agreed with it. There you go.

Yours non-bickeringly (for now),

Steve ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:06 PM

""Well, Ed, as you posted it without comment I assumed you sort of agreed with it.""

Yes, I can understand that interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:16 PM

You caught me on that one, DMcG, though it was interesting, I was only taking the courses to fill in a few "electives",(except for the philosophy of science).

And yes, it is likely I went a pub shortly after, or at least had thoughts of one during or after the classes. You figured me out. I can tell that I'm not match for you. :)

On a more serious note, thanks for that explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:43 PM

*grin*,,,Ok, Ed.. a reference to Zeno would have tipped me off to the humorous aside you were making.

But a little depth in those fallacies I mentioned would have allowed those in your class to have simply said: "Well, since there IS obviously 'movement' from A to B, something must be tricky or ambiguous about the construction of the seeming paradox....let's see what it might be." Then, perhaps, embedded assumptions might be discovered about "moving" or equivocations on some of the terms...depending on how they were presented.

It ain't always easy to show precisely what is wrong with an assertion...but since we all occasionally 'just know' someone's reasoning is flawed, it can be quite useful to have some notion about where to go look....

"There was a faith healer of Deal
Who said "Although pain isn't real,
   When I sit on a pin,
   And it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 04:13 AM

My last post was designed to be a little provocative, although I suppose I stand by it. My wording hopefully made it quite clear that there is no God other than in the minds of those who believe.

Now...

Ignoring the usual Descartes reply to that, (which is a circular argument anyway,) I was quite rightly classed as somebody who knocks religion rather than debate it.

Sorry, but I cannot see how else to express my views? To debate is to accept the possibility that the other guy has a point. But when the other guy brings his imaginary friend to the debate, try as much I can to be civil, I am still left with the feeling that I am humouring irrational thoughts. As I am not a psychiatrist, I don't feel equipped to do that.

So, I am left with just stating, as much as some may not like it, that the Emperor has no clothes. Debate over young earth creationism is no different to any other creationism, or indeed intelligent design.

if there was intelligent design, then we have not yet worked out the ins and outs of it. I suspect it does not have a big white beard or had a son, (even if I were religious, I would have issues with that one, or three to be precise.)

Einstein said that the answer cannot be bound in aethiest means either, as that would mean chaos and the rules of physics seem to hold at all times, albeit we are still tweaking such laws. So clearly chaos isn't the answer.

Mind you, probability arising from the chaos is a bit more like it. I have no problem with accepting the probability of that describing the status quo.

But don't expect me to thank it for the good bits, absolve it from blame for the bad bits and worship it once a week with an inane smile on my face.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 05:38 AM

Glad you you took that in good heart, Ed. I've been to the student bar once or twice myself after lectures! Be assured I have no intention of trying to catch you or anyone else out.

There's just something about philosophy which mean people who fully admit they haven't studied it - like me - have quite strong options about it - also like me! As my darling offspring says, if she's at a club and mentions she studies philosphy people will inevitably mention Decartes, Nietzsche, Marx or some other well known name, but almost always be unable to say much more then one line. She doesn't believe if said she was a materials scientist people would say: "Ah yes, well I've put some decking down, so I know about that."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 08:03 AM

I post recent published research on ESP and background for discussion. Now, I am not saying it is true, because I post it for information and to stimulate discussion. If it were proven to be valid research, I suspect it would stimulate much additional research in science (to check the accuracy and look farther)?

Recent ESP research paper

Publication of ESP study causes furor

Some ESP history

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 08:07 AM

I havent read this article (opinion article) yet, just came accross it in the ESP research paper article.SO,I am not promoting it.

What's Truth? Scientific Method Under the Microscope

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 08:23 AM

Another interesting article...though I doubt mudcat has a huge Mexican membership?

Down in Mexico

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 09:13 AM

Thisa seems to be an interesting source of science stories and issues:
Science and the media:

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:18 AM

I have only one question for those who believe in Creationism. Do you think it should be taught in school alongside the Theory of Evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 11:16 AM

They could be taught in the same lesson by one of those "creationist scientists" that pete keeps going on about. Unfortunately, he can't name names.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 11:47 AM

It's interesting that the article "http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/science/4008/what's_truth_scientific_method_under_the_microscope" makes one of the most common mistakes about comparing 'science' with 'belief systems'.
It quotes Jonah Lehrer as summarizing the situation as: "When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe."

   Essentially this argument has been put forth here on Mudcat threads many times using slightly different words. They assert things such as "Science is just one more belief system. You 'choose' to accept the conclusions of science, just as others choose to accept religious teachings or ESP results".
   The mistake is in confusing the obvious ability of our human species to accept or reject ANY proposition with the actual, ultimate status of the proposition.
We see this clearly when we continue the little stories about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and, perhaps, the Boogyman for children. From about 2 to 6 or 7, kids are able to simply 'believe' these stories, and often take other stories read to them as literal. After 6 or 7, they gradually begin to see flaws in the fabric, and just like the child who shouted "But...the emperor HAS no clothes!", they use growing 'reason' to relegate childhood myths to the proper place. (I remember at about 10-11, 'proving' to my younger brother that Santa could not possibly make all those stops in one night...though *I* had firmly held on to them until about 7.)
Still, we meet people who, despite their realization that Santa was only a nice story, continue to hold onto stories about elves, fairies, witches, unicorns, ....and many other entire 'systems' involving astrology, crystal balls, Tarot cards, Oujia boards, lines in the palm, reincarnation, out-of-body experiences, various forms of ESP, Alien abductions....and religion. And of course, they will tell you.."but THESE things are different! They are widely 'reported' and MY experiences were so intense that they MUST be real!"...etc.

   The ability of the mind to 'see patterns'...such as 'constellations' in the sky... is both a virtue & a problem, for although without the ability to see patterns, we could not do many things...yet it is so easy to grant certain subjective patterns a status equal to objective patterns.

If we had, as written about in some science-fiction stories, machines, computers...or in combination, robots... whose 'thinking' abilities rivaled our own... and fed those totally 'neutral', totally objective, programmed machines the same information we process in our free will, we just might get a lot fewer propositions ruled as 'verified'.

   So... the article "What's Truth? Scientific Method Under the Microscope
God-experience, ESP, and the decline effect." IS attempting to show how 'scientific truth might be just a choice'...and falling into the same trap as many people do every day.
To repeat my main point- The mistake is in confusing the obvious ability of our human species to accept or reject ANY proposition with the actual, ultimate status of the proposition.

...and... it is instructive to read another article on that site:

A Philosopher of Religion Calls it Quits, where basic assumptions are explored & questioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 01:27 PM

If you say that "science is just another belief system," you're disingenuously trying to have science seen on the same intellectual level as belief in God. I'd argue that it is an attempt to severely drag science down. In other contexts, for example when believers say that religion has evidence, just like science, only it's a different kind of evidence, it's an attempt to severely drag religion up. Religion finds itself in a very unhappy place with science, a function of the fact that we're closing in on many of the unknowns that religion would have had us believe were exclusively in the realm of "God's Mysteries." Those damned laws of physics... In a way, the advance of scientific discovery has the same effect on religion as the growing-up of a child has on belief in fairies and Santa, except that religion is notoriously reluctant to let people go, unlike sensible parents. It's interesting to see how religions might react to this. Certainly, demonisation of scientists, especially in the field of evolutionary biology, is still flavour of the month at the moment. One day the Church will have to apologise to far more people than just Galileo. Note the pessimism in there, the assumption that there will still be a Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 01:52 PM

Dave McKenzie quoted someone (with evident approval) as follows:

The problem is that once the philosophy of the blind, pitiless, indifferent universe without good or evil is adopted, there is no basis for hating evil and loving good. How can you hate what does not exist? That is why the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell stated 'Dachau is wrong is not a fact.'

First, that speaker/writer heavily implies that 'the blind, pitiless, indifferent universe' is necessarily 'without good or evil'. That's his own projected interpretation. "Good" and "evil" are judgments, not entities or facts

Which is why Bertrand Russell was correct in saying that 'Dachau is wrong'; 'Dachau is wrong' is not a fact. It is a true recognition that "wrong" is a judgment.

As to the sentence fragment above, that 'there is no basis for hating evil and loving good,' I say, "Bushwah!" "Good" and "evil", as I stated above, are not facts of the universe, handed down by some metaphysical lawgiver. "Good" and "evil" are concepts derivable from nonreligious ethical and moral principles. They relate to what is seen to harm humans and possibly other sentient beings. I love actions or situations or attitudes that do good as I see it, and hate actions or situations or attitudes that do harm. Those are the entities that are lovable or hateable, not some abstraction called "good" or "evil". The reality is in the action, not the metaphor.

No supernatural or metaphysical basis for existence of the universe is necessary, to cause or support those loves or hates.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 03:06 PM

Dave paraphrases Immanuel Kant quite well....in much simpler sentences.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 03:10 PM

Science is decidedly NOT just another belief system. It is, in fact, intentionally a *disbelief* system.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 03:57 PM

THe notion that having a code of good and evil means you have to buy the Young Earth hypoithesis, with its blatant contumacious obdurate ignoral of facts in evidence, is like saying you have to be stupid in order to be good. It's absurd on the face of it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 06:42 PM

Back when I was a freshman at the University of Washington, when the world was young, the idea that to have a sense of ethics—a moral code—one must be religious was pretty well dismissed in Philosophy 100 (Introduction to Philosophy) and totally demolished in Philosophy 115 (Ethics).

Some people who lack a certain kind of introspection, or are not very clued-in to the world, or seem to have a natural predatory bent, perhaps need the kind of guidance that religion often provides (a lot of it being just common sense).    But it's a pretty sad code of ethics if the reason one follows it is dependent on expectation of reward for doing the right thing and fear of having one's ass roasted for Eternity for doing the wrong thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 08:51 PM

"contumacious obdurate"

{standing ovation!!!!!}

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:08 PM

Amos,

Rest assured that Young Earth Creationism does NOT hold that, in order to have a code of good and evil, you must accept their beliefs.

A code of good and evil fits well with, and flows naturally and logically from, YEC.

Equally obviously, SOME Ancient Earth Naturalists (Ayn Rand and Herbert Spencer, for example) have had, let us say, some "issues" with good and evil.

However, it absolutely does NOT follow that one can't have a code of good and evil without YEC.   

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:38 PM

Yes.
They are completely separate issues.
Kent is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 04:24 AM

Just to be pedantic, TIA, Kent is correct that YEC as described in the first few posts above means "it absolutely does NOT follow that one can't have a code of good and evil without YEC". However, I disagree that "A code of good and evil ... flows naturally and logically from, YEC." I could accept that Earth was created some 6000 years ago (I don't, by the way!) and that that required some supernatural intervention (ditto!) without accepting anything whatsoever about a system of ethics. That flows, in YEC, from further assumptions about the nature of this supernatural intervention which are not listed above.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 04:40 AM

I get the impression that the Free Church of Scotland, unlike the Free Church (Continuing) is prepared to discuss the possibility that Creation did not take place in seven earthly days. Personally, I agree with Dave Oesterreich and Bernard Russell.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 01:48 PM

Kent, do you think that Creationism should be taught in schools alongside the Theory of Evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 03:05 PM

"should"?

What does "should" have to do with it? Why not make all viewpoints generally accessible to young people and then let them decide for themselves what to think about it? Have a little faith in them for a change. They have intelligence of their own, so let them use it. If some of them decide to believe something you don't believe, I hardly see that it threatens the foundations of your existence. ;-) There will probably always be people who believe in creationism and people who believe in evolution...and others who believe in BOTH those concepts...and so what? I can live with that.

Anyway, adults should have enough honestly to tell young people...

"I don't actually know for sure. This is what I was told about it by various other people. It might be true, what they said, but how can I ever know for sure? This is just my best guess, okay? So you give it some thought and see what you think about it, and I will not penalize you if you don't think the same as I do."

That's an attitude I'd encourage all adults to take. Stop pretending you've got the answers to everything. You don't. And the young people will presently figure that out anyway. ;-) And they'll respect you a lot more if you were honest with them, and admitted in the first place that you don't know everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 03:18 PM

i would not say "science is just another belief system".it is something data may be derived from.
however various alternative belief systems are using the data to different ends,and drawing different conclusions regarding beginnings,usually informed by the worldview/preconceptions of the scientist.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 03:47 PM

Little Hawk, saying that I don't want Creationism taught in science classes is not the same as saying I think I know everything. Two things I do know, however, is that Creationism isn't science and that religious instruction doesn't belong in public schools. Are you seriously suggesting that we teach something so ignorant and illogical as Creationism as if it were serious?

Creationists can believe any damn fool thing they want, but when they force it into our classrooms they cross the line into forcing their beliefs on others, and expecting me to pay for it. Fortunately, we in the U.S. have something called separation of church and state, even though it isn't always enforced. Save Creationism for philosophy or history classes, and teach it as an example of ignorance run amok and of logical fallacy.

And please, don't anyone start on me about enforcing my "scientific beliefs" on others, unless you want me to explain in great detail how ignorant and illogical you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 04:22 PM

Opening the door to creationism being taught in public science classes, opens up a big can of worms, IMO, and may open the door to many other religious thought. Best to ""let it be"" in the public school system. t

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 06:34 PM

You CAN'T exactly 'teach creationism' in a science class, because all it is is a statement that "the Bible is literally true". Teaching is done about processes and theories that are documented in various ways.

You could teach about creationism in a class about History or Political science.... that is, make note that it is a viewpoint that is debated AS an alternative and relevant in society's struggle to deal with reality.

Unfortunately, what many wish is to require science teachers to put creationism and evolution on an equal footing as 'merely' theories. This is simply a severe distortion of the status of BOTH concepts.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 07:04 PM

John, I am suggesting that we don't try to unload our own prejudices on our children, and that we don't try to give them the false impression that we are all-knowing oracles with the answer to everything. Only that. I was taught very little about the scientific view of evolution in school (I learned much more at home about it than at school), and I was taught absolutely nothing about creationism either at school or at home, but I'd frankly have been quite interested in hearing about both of them, and then allowed to use my own intelligence to sort out the various implications as I saw fit. I eventually did that anyway, on my own initiative.

I think religion is mostly about the search for meaning in life...it asks the great philosophical questions. And science is mostly the search for verifiable facts and ways of applying those facts in a practical manner. Either search is quite justified, in my opinion, and they could work together very well if people took their blinders off and got off their silly little soapboxes and stopped throwing rocks at each other for being interested in different things. Religion and science are not fundamentally opposed, because they are devoted to seeking out different objectives. It's just the silly damned stiff-necked people who exclusively identify themselves with one or the other who are opposed...to each other. They have to have it all THEIR way. Well, a pox on both their houses, I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 07:48 PM

I think religion is mostly about the search for meaning in life...it asks the great philosophical questions.

Yes. We are not, however, talking about what religion is or what it can do for people. We're talking about telling lies to school children. There's a big difference.

And yes, I am opposed to people who want to teach religion in science classes. If they do it, I admit to getting stiff-necked about it. I am not, you will notice, stiff-necked about religious folks who leave me alone and don't try to take over my schools.

You can call a pox on any houses you want, but in this instance it just means that you agree with the Creationists, or at least are willing to let them force their religion on unsuspecting kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:00 PM

"We're talking about telling lies to school children"

What is not clear is how many KNOW they are suggesting lies, and how many actually manage to lie to themselves convincingly first.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:04 PM

Religion is most decidedly not the search for the meaning of life. It is the very opposite. It is an attempt to impose a totally implausible explanation for life and the world and the universe on people, and, what's more, one which attempts to assert a measure of control over people's behaviour and (maybe worse) their intellect. It closes down enquiry by encouraging people to be satisfied with a wholly unsatisfactory "explanation" of everything. It purports to provide an "answer" for everything that, out of all possible answers, is the one which is by far the most improbable, requiring us to suspend belief in all the hard-won laws of physics and believe in a being who has never revealed himself and for whom there is no evidence. It pretends to ask philosophical questions, but these are asked only within a ringfence of utter falsehood. Science is not opposed to religion. It would be more accurate to say that science need not concern itself with religion, but that religion obsessively opposes and demonises science whenever science starts to answer those awkward mysteries that religion would much rather keep as its own.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:11 PM

You are deliberately telling lies to children if you tell them that things are true which you know may not be. I was brought up in a religious environment (and I'm not that old) and I don't recall much equivocation about the stuff I was told to believe. And anyone of faith who embraces such certainty is not someone who is fit to be put in front of kids in a school, frankly. Religious indoctrination of children is one of the greatest evils that humanity perpetrates, and an awful lot of very nice people connive in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:16 PM

John P.,

What I think about teachining creationism in public schools has little to do with what I think of creationism, but a great deal to do with what I think of the role of the government, and a great deal to do with my philosophy of education.

That said, I could not have answered any better than Little Hawk did in his answer of 3:05 today.   

To repeat, this answer is NOT due to my position on YEC.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 08:26 PM

What I think about teachining creationism in public schools has little to do with what I think of creationism, but a great deal to do with what I think of the role of the government, and a great deal to do with my philosophy of education.

That said, I could not have answered any better than Little Hawk did in his answer of 3:05 today.

So let me get this right. You think that any wacky topic should be allowed on any school curriculum, no matter how demented or deluded its protagonists are. Well I think you and Little Hawk are wrong. Creationism is not a bona fide topic. It's a sneaky, back-door way of getting an anti-science voice into schools. I'll tell you what. I'll compromise. Let's not have creationism put against evolution. Let's put it where it truly belongs, in lessons which give equal credence to atheism and the books of Dawkins. That way you can leave science to be science (and to tell the kids that there is no evidence for creationism and that they should always ask for evidence before believing anything). You OK with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 09:28 PM

Primarily, children should be taught the difference between fact and opinion, and encouraged to question everything. Any religious indocrination of children is profoundly wrong in my opinion, and in this day and age tantamount to abuse. By all means equip them to make up their own minds when they are of a responsible age, but first ensure that they have their own minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 09:30 PM

Insert 't' where required..

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Jan 11 - 09:32 PM

""Primarily, children should be taught the difference between fact and opinion...""

Primarily, "adults" should be taught the difference between fact and opinion.