Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution and Creationism in school

gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 6:00:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
before you roll your eyes and put my ideas aside as being just "another christian trying to indoctrinate children," please hear me out . . ..

I think that both should be taught equally . .. .

Why?

1) Teaching both will make children think, make the reason out an answer. If taught with an unbiased approach it will prove to be much more educational. It will make children ask hard questions to themselves, provide a source of debate. Showing both beliefs will ultimately be more educational, that after all is what school is for . . ..

2) By ignoring creationist beliefs it breeds ignorance. In order to defend your beliefs you must know something about the other side of the argument. How can we expect to be training a "new generation" of thinkers if we merely tell them what to think, tell them whats right and wrong, and leave nothing for them to make true decisions about? By showing both sides of the argument it would force children to choose, it will allow them to be better able to defend their beliefs, whether they are Christian or Atheist (sorry all you other religions) . . .. . .

So, I guess your responses should ask why? or why not? . . ..
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 6:41:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I wouldn't be opposed to having kids think over the ideas, but only one (Evolution) ought to be presented as science, as only one is science.

Creationism, ought be presented as a common thread of religious beliefs, one for which there is no good reason to believe :), for if there was it would be science.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 6:55:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Evolution is science - Creationism is mythos.

Keep the science to science classes, and keep the religious mythos to religion classes, which I would support.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 7:21:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The best response to this question comes in the form of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, praise be to His noodly appendages.

http://www.venganza.org...
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 10:23:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
As an atheist and a evolutionist I have no problem with creationism and evolution being taught side by side. Heck evolution was not even taught very well in my school but it did not really matter, the creation vs. Evolution debate almost does not exist in the UK.

Arguably both should be taught in 'philosophy' as neither truely fall totally under the remit of science.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:43:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Being the resident scientist, i suppose i feel obligated to answer.

At 1/20/2010 6:00:45 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
before you roll your eyes and put my ideas aside as being just "another christian trying to indoctrinate children," please hear me out . . ..

I think that both should be taught equally . .. .

Why?

1) Teaching both will make children think, make the reason out an answer. If taught with an unbiased approach it will prove to be much more educational. It will make children ask hard questions to themselves, provide a source of debate. Showing both beliefs will ultimately be more educational, that after all is what school is for . . ..
Uh, no.

First off, which creation story? There are a myriad of them, some including one God, others with multiple ones. Do we teach Hindu Creation story alongside the Bible one?

Secondly, teaching any creation story in a science classroom setting is already biased. It is deceiving, and makes it seem as though Creation is a valid scientific theory.

Thirdly, it isnt up to the children to determine which theory(or rather, which theory and which hypothesis, since Creationism is a hypothesis and not a theory), should be accepted by science. That is up to the scientists.

Should we teach children Flat earth theory, and Spherical earth theory, and let them choose which to believe?

Should we teach children the Hollow Earth theory, and let them choose what to believe?

I mean, all these theories are all outdated, have mounds of evidence contradicting them, and little evidence to support them. I find no reason to teach creationism, but ignore the Hollow Earth society and their pleas to teach the Hollow Earth theory in schools and let children decide.

Children, who have not even been past the first hurdle of science, i.e. graduating high school, have neither the knowledge nor the credentials to determine which is better.

2) By ignoring creationist beliefs it breeds ignorance. In order to defend your beliefs you must know something about the other side of the argument. How can we expect to be training a "new generation" of thinkers if we merely tell them what to think, tell them whats right and wrong, and leave nothing for them to make true decisions about? By showing both sides of the argument it would force children to choose, it will allow them to be better able to defend their beliefs, whether they are Christian or Atheist (sorry all you other religions) . . .. . .

So, I guess your responses should ask why? or why not? . . ..

First, there are christians who accept evolutio, so i dont understand what the difference here is in pointing out "Christian or Atheist".

Second, teaching creationism will in fact breed ignorance. Most children who take science class, will not grow up to be scientists. They, instead, grow up to be the general public. And many of them will misunderstand the differences of evidence, between Creation and Evolution. There is nothing scientific, there is no science behind Creationism. The potential problems are painfully obvious from the start, and children will ask these questions off the bat:
1. Why is it taught in science class if its not science or doesnt contain some scientific basis?
2. Why do the schools bother to address this? Is it because there might be some truth to it?

Furthermore, when you get down to teaching evolution VS creationism, its impossible for Evolution not to come out as Biased, and im damn sure that religious groups will pick up on this. After all:
Evolution has this massive amount of evidence.
Creation has no evidence.
And when the teachers are explaining how Creation can only be true if we ignore and throw out the laws of physics, if we ignore and throw out these evidences, if we ignore and throw out reality, i am willing to bet that Religious groups will instantly say "Why didnt you explain that these 'problems' are not problems at all, because God can do whatever he wants and can contradict Science and physics at a whim? Youre being biased against Creation! I want you to teach Creationism the same way you teach Evolution, that Creation IS possible because God can do whatever he wants!"

And thats another problem. This God, this Intelligent creator or designer, can only be proved via logic. This becomes a subject of philosophy, and not Science anymore.

Therefore my stance is against teaching Creationism in school. Whether a hypothesis is valid or not should be determined by Scientists, not Students. We dont allow any other outdated, baseless theory with little to no evidence, to be taught in schools alongside the current, modern, accepted scientific theory. Why should this be any different?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:03:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Someone missed something. Can you point out in the OP where he said that they should be taught in "science" class?

this goes on should school teach anything that is not proven as fact? And if it does, should it be required to teach all sides of something that is not proven with facts?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:04:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:03:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
Someone missed something. Can you point out in the OP where he said that they should be taught in "science" class?


It is only in that context that this makes any sense.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:12:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:04:12 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:03:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
Someone missed something. Can you point out in the OP where he said that they should be taught in "science" class?


It is only in that context that this makes any sense.

Not at all, it could be taught in an elective class that is purely optional. My high school didn't teach creationism or evolution, though it did cover over adaptation for 2 days in biology class. The school wanted to have an elective class that focused on theories, and how to look at different theories (including creationism vs evolution) but they never got the funding for it (stupid football team).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 2:24:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:12:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:04:12 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:03:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
Someone missed something. Can you point out in the OP where he said that they should be taught in "science" class?


It is only in that context that this makes any sense.

Not at all, it could be taught in an elective class that is purely optional. My high school didn't teach creationism or evolution, though it did cover over adaptation for 2 days in biology class. The school wanted to have an elective class that focused on theories, and how to look at different theories (including creationism vs evolution) but they never got the funding for it (stupid football team).

How could you possibly fill an entire semester with Creationism. I can explain Creationism in 2 seconds.

Furthermore, im even more against such an idea. Atleast with the science class, they would teach Evolution alongside Creationism.

Imagine a kid who didnt take science and therefore doesnt even know the existance of Evolution, but takes Creationism instead. Thats even worse.

Also, not sure where you live, but if you live in the USA, the first amendment bars schools from teaching Creationism. Its why they had to try to sneak in Intelligent Design.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 2:28:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:12:42 PM, OreEle wrote:

My high school didn't teach...evolution, though it did cover over adaptation for 2 days in biology class.

Then your high school, and more specifically your Biology teacher, is a Complete Farce.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 8:11:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 2:28:46 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:12:42 PM, OreEle wrote:

My high school didn't teach...evolution, though it did cover over adaptation for 2 days in biology class.

Then your high school, and more specifically your Biology teacher, is a Complete Farce.

Dunno, maybe orele is 60 years old. Evolution wasnt taught much back then.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 8:15:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:12:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:04:12 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:03:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
Someone missed something. Can you point out in the OP where he said that they should be taught in "science" class?


It is only in that context that this makes any sense.

Not at all, it could be taught in an elective class that is purely optional. My high school didn't teach creationism or evolution, though it did cover over adaptation for 2 days in biology class. The school wanted to have an elective class that focused on theories, and how to look at different theories (including creationism vs evolution) but they never got the funding for it (stupid football team).

In UK schools we have science lessons (in which evolution may be taught) and religion lessons in which pretty much by definition creationism has to be taught.

The only controversey is the demands to have them taught alongside each other.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 8:52:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 8:15:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:12:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:04:12 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:03:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
Someone missed something. Can you point out in the OP where he said that they should be taught in "science" class?


It is only in that context that this makes any sense.

Not at all, it could be taught in an elective class that is purely optional. My high school didn't teach creationism or evolution, though it did cover over adaptation for 2 days in biology class. The school wanted to have an elective class that focused on theories, and how to look at different theories (including creationism vs evolution) but they never got the funding for it (stupid football team).

In UK schools we have science lessons (in which evolution may be taught) and religion lessons in which pretty much by definition creationism has to be taught.

The only controversey is the demands to have them taught alongside each other.

Depends on how creation is taught in religious lessons. If they are teaching it as though its a science, bringing up evidence of how there was a global flood, etc, im against it. Do you know if they are teaching it like this?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 8:56:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 8:52:31 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/22/2010 8:15:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:12:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:04:12 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:03:13 PM, OreEle wrote:
Someone missed something. Can you point out in the OP where he said that they should be taught in "science" class?


It is only in that context that this makes any sense.

Not at all, it could be taught in an elective class that is purely optional. My high school didn't teach creationism or evolution, though it did cover over adaptation for 2 days in biology class. The school wanted to have an elective class that focused on theories, and how to look at different theories (including creationism vs evolution) but they never got the funding for it (stupid football team).

In UK schools we have science lessons (in which evolution may be taught) and religion lessons in which pretty much by definition creationism has to be taught.

The only controversey is the demands to have them taught alongside each other.

Depends on how creation is taught in religious lessons. If they are teaching it as though its a science, bringing up evidence of how there was a global flood, etc, im against it. Do you know if they are teaching it like this?

My own experience was that religious studies doubled up as a very basic philosophy class, with the basic arguments for God, creation, design etc trotted out.

I'd like Evolution and Creationism to be taught together either in Science or a philosophy lesson, because if you 'get' the argument you know how to think.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 9:01:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd like Evolution and Creationism to be taught together either in Science or a philosophy lesson, because if you 'get' the argument you know how to think.

Evo. isn't a philosophy, or even really an answer to a philosophical question.

It's a logical and straightforward explanation of hard and fast physical phenomena.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 9:10:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 9:01:02 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd like Evolution and Creationism to be taught together either in Science or a philosophy lesson, because if you 'get' the argument you know how to think.

Evo. isn't a philosophy, or even really an answer to a philosophical question.

It's a logical and straightforward explanation of hard and fast physical phenomena.

In one sentence you tell me it's not philosophy, in the next you tell me it is!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 9:14:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 9:10:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:01:02 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd like Evolution and Creationism to be taught together either in Science or a philosophy lesson, because if you 'get' the argument you know how to think.

Evo. isn't a philosophy, or even really an answer to a philosophical question.

It's a logical and straightforward explanation of hard and fast physical phenomena.

In one sentence you tell me it's not philosophy, in the next you tell me it is!

Scientific explanations take phys. reality as the given and use logic from there ; Evolution falls under this category.

Whether or not one should take phys. reality as a given is a philosophical issue.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 9:16:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 9:14:10 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Whether or not one should take phys. reality as a given, *or as the only given* is a philosophical issue.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 9:17:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 9:14:10 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:10:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:01:02 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd like Evolution and Creationism to be taught together either in Science or a philosophy lesson, because if you 'get' the argument you know how to think.

Evo. isn't a philosophy, or even really an answer to a philosophical question.

It's a logical and straightforward explanation of hard and fast physical phenomena.

In one sentence you tell me it's not philosophy, in the next you tell me it is!

Scientific explanations take phys. reality as the given and use logic from there ; Evolution falls under this category.

Whether or not one should take phys. reality as a given is a philosophical issue.

This is an arbitary distinction, science is philosophy that can be subjected to empirical research. You can not entirely seperate the two concepts.

The scientific argument for evolution, and the scientific argument for creation/design operate on the same plane. One may be more successful than the other, but if one is taught in a given subject so too should be the other.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 10:03:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 9:17:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:14:10 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:10:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:01:02 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd like Evolution and Creationism to be taught together either in Science or a philosophy lesson, because if you 'get' the argument you know how to think.

Evo. isn't a philosophy, or even really an answer to a philosophical question.

It's a logical and straightforward explanation of hard and fast physical phenomena.

In one sentence you tell me it's not philosophy, in the next you tell me it is!

Scientific explanations take phys. reality as the given and use logic from there ; Evolution falls under this category.

Whether or not one should take phys. reality as a given is a philosophical issue.

This is an arbitary distinction, science is philosophy that can be subjected to empirical research. You can not entirely seperate the two concepts.

The scientific argument for evolution, and the scientific argument for creation/design operate on the same plane. One may be more successful than the other, but if one is taught in a given subject so too should be the other.

Actually, no. You do not need to know a shred of philosophy in order to be an expert in science.

A scientist does not need to explain why his scientific theory is correct in philosophical terms in order for his theory to pass. This is ridiculous.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 11:08:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 10:03:41 AM, tkubok wrote:

A scientist does not need to explain why his scientific theory is correct in philosophical terms in order for his theory to pass.

I agree they need only accept phys. reality as a given.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 11:11:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 10:03:41 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:17:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:14:10 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:10:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:01:02 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd like Evolution and Creationism to be taught together either in Science or a philosophy lesson, because if you 'get' the argument you know how to think.

Evo. isn't a philosophy, or even really an answer to a philosophical question.

It's a logical and straightforward explanation of hard and fast physical phenomena.

In one sentence you tell me it's not philosophy, in the next you tell me it is!

Scientific explanations take phys. reality as the given and use logic from there ; Evolution falls under this category.

Whether or not one should take phys. reality as a given is a philosophical issue.

This is an arbitary distinction, science is philosophy that can be subjected to empirical research. You can not entirely seperate the two concepts.

The scientific argument for evolution, and the scientific argument for creation/design operate on the same plane. One may be more successful than the other, but if one is taught in a given subject so too should be the other.

Actually, no. You do not need to know a shred of philosophy in order to be an expert in science.

May not to be an expert, but to be an actual scientist you do. If you do not understand or follow the scientific method then you are a worthless scientist.


A scientist does not need to explain why his scientific theory is correct in philosophical terms in order for his theory to pass. This is ridiculous.

That would be ridiculous... now back onto the words I may have said...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 11:14:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 11:11:23 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 10:03:41 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:17:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:14:10 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:10:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:01:02 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd like Evolution and Creationism to be taught together either in Science or a philosophy lesson, because if you 'get' the argument you know how to think.

Evo. isn't a philosophy, or even really an answer to a philosophical question.

It's a logical and straightforward explanation of hard and fast physical phenomena.

In one sentence you tell me it's not philosophy, in the next you tell me it is!

Scientific explanations take phys. reality as the given and use logic from there ; Evolution falls under this category.

Whether or not one should take phys. reality as a given is a philosophical issue.

This is an arbitary distinction, science is philosophy that can be subjected to empirical research. You can not entirely seperate the two concepts.

The scientific argument for evolution, and the scientific argument for creation/design operate on the same plane. One may be more successful than the other, but if one is taught in a given subject so too should be the other.

Actually, no. You do not need to know a shred of philosophy in order to be an expert in science.

May not to be an expert, but to be an actual scientist you do. If you do not understand or follow the scientific method then you are a worthless scientist.

The scientific method is not something that requires philosophy in order to understand. Its really simple, and you dont need to take a philosophy class in order to follow it. I fail to see any reason why one would have to subject themselves to learn Science in a philosophy classroom.

A scientist does not need to explain why his scientific theory is correct in philosophical terms in order for his theory to pass. This is ridiculous.

That would be ridiculous... now back onto the words I may have said...
Youre advocating to teach a scientific theory in a philosophy classroom. please explain to me how this is any different.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 11:17:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 11:14:48 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/22/2010 11:11:23 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 10:03:41 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:17:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:14:10 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:10:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:01:02 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd like Evolution and Creationism to be taught together either in Science or a philosophy lesson, because if you 'get' the argument you know how to think.

Evo. isn't a philosophy, or even really an answer to a philosophical question.

It's a logical and straightforward explanation of hard and fast physical phenomena.

In one sentence you tell me it's not philosophy, in the next you tell me it is!

Scientific explanations take phys. reality as the given and use logic from there ; Evolution falls under this category.

Whether or not one should take phys. reality as a given is a philosophical issue.

This is an arbitary distinction, science is philosophy that can be subjected to empirical research. You can not entirely seperate the two concepts.

The scientific argument for evolution, and the scientific argument for creation/design operate on the same plane. One may be more successful than the other, but if one is taught in a given subject so too should be the other.

Actually, no. You do not need to know a shred of philosophy in order to be an expert in science.

May not to be an expert, but to be an actual scientist you do. If you do not understand or follow the scientific method then you are a worthless scientist.

The scientific method is not something that requires philosophy in order to understand.

It is philosophy.

Its really simple,

So is most philosophy.

and you dont need to take a philosophy class in order to follow it. I fail to see any reason why one would have to subject themselves to learn Science in a philosophy classroom.

I refer you to my previous posts.


A scientist does not need to explain why his scientific theory is correct in philosophical terms in order for his theory to pass. This is ridiculous.

That would be ridiculous... now back onto the words I may have said...
Youre advocating to teach a scientific theory in a philosophy classroom. please explain to me how this is any different.

See above.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 11:18:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 9:17:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

This is an arbitrary distinction, science is philosophy that can be subjected to empirical research. You can not entirely separate the two concepts.

Science is argument based purely off of the physical, taking the physical to be true.

It is Not Philosophy. Philosophy is why you ought to take things as true. Science does not try to explain this it simply assumes them.

Now are there Philosophical arguments for taking up/ using scientific enquiry sure. Are there Philosophical arguments identifying it's limits, yeah.

The scientific argument for evolution, and the scientific argument for creation/design operate on the same plane.

You can reason/philosophize about both but in science there are assumptions.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 11:22:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 11:18:03 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:17:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

This is an arbitrary distinction, science is philosophy that can be subjected to empirical research. You can not entirely separate the two concepts.

Science is argument based purely off of the physical, taking the physical to be true.

It is Not Philosophy. Philosophy is why you ought to take things as true. Science does not try to explain this it simply assumes them.

Now are there Philosophical arguments for taking up/ using scientific enquiry sure. Are there Philosophical arguments identifying it's limits, yeah.

The scientific argument for evolution, and the scientific argument for creation/design operate on the same plane.

You can reason/philosophize about both but * Science is based purely off the assumption that "phys reality"= reality

*Fixed
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 11:37:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 11:17:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 11:14:48 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/22/2010 11:11:23 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 10:03:41 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:17:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:14:10 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:10:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:01:02 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd like Evolution and Creationism to be taught together either in Science or a philosophy lesson, because if you 'get' the argument you know how to think.

Evo. isn't a philosophy, or even really an answer to a philosophical question.

It's a logical and straightforward explanation of hard and fast physical phenomena.

In one sentence you tell me it's not philosophy, in the next you tell me it is!

Scientific explanations take phys. reality as the given and use logic from there ; Evolution falls under this category.

Whether or not one should take phys. reality as a given is a philosophical issue.

This is an arbitary distinction, science is philosophy that can be subjected to empirical research. You can not entirely seperate the two concepts.

The scientific argument for evolution, and the scientific argument for creation/design operate on the same plane. One may be more successful than the other, but if one is taught in a given subject so too should be the other.

Actually, no. You do not need to know a shred of philosophy in order to be an expert in science.

May not to be an expert, but to be an actual scientist you do. If you do not understand or follow the scientific method then you are a worthless scientist.

The scientific method is not something that requires philosophy in order to understand.

It is philosophy.

Its really simple,

So is most philosophy.

and you dont need to take a philosophy class in order to follow it. I fail to see any reason why one would have to subject themselves to learn Science in a philosophy classroom.

I refer you to my previous posts.


A scientist does not need to explain why his scientific theory is correct in philosophical terms in order for his theory to pass. This is ridiculous.

That would be ridiculous... now back onto the words I may have said...
Youre advocating to teach a scientific theory in a philosophy classroom. please explain to me how this is any different.

See above.

Well great, so are you in favor of teaching mathematics in philosophy classes too?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2010 4:26:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/22/2010 11:37:57 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/22/2010 11:17:13 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 11:14:48 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/22/2010 11:11:23 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 10:03:41 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:17:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:14:10 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:10:30 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 1/22/2010 9:01:02 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd like Evolution and Creationism to be taught together either in Science or a philosophy lesson, because if you 'get' the argument you know how to think.

Evo. isn't a philosophy, or even really an answer to a philosophical question.

It's a logical and straightforward explanation of hard and fast physical phenomena.

In one sentence you tell me it's not philosophy, in the next you tell me it is!

Scientific explanations take phys. reality as the given and use logic from there ; Evolution falls under this category.

Whether or not one should take phys. reality as a given is a philosophical issue.

This is an arbitary distinction, science is philosophy that can be subjected to empirical research. You can not entirely seperate the two concepts.

The scientific argument for evolution, and the scientific argument for creation/design operate on the same plane. One may be more successful than the other, but if one is taught in a given subject so too should be the other.

Actually, no. You do not need to know a shred of philosophy in order to be an expert in science.

May not to be an expert, but to be an actual scientist you do. If you do not understand or follow the scientific method then you are a worthless scientist.

The scientific method is not something that requires philosophy in order to understand.

It is philosophy.

Its really simple,

So is most philosophy.

and you dont need to take a philosophy class in order to follow it. I fail to see any reason why one would have to subject themselves to learn Science in a philosophy classroom.

I refer you to my previous posts.


A scientist does not need to explain why his scientific theory is correct in philosophical terms in order for his theory to pass. This is ridiculous.

That would be ridiculous... now back onto the words I may have said...
Youre advocating to teach a scientific theory in a philosophy classroom. please explain to me how this is any different.

See above.

Well great, so are you in favor of teaching mathematics in philosophy classes too?

Wow... are you just so insecure in your faith that you can't have any sort of honest conversation?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.