(March 15, 2013 at 8:31 am)Persuade Me Wrote: It's a theory in the sense that it's an idea.

Then 'hypothesis' would be the correct term.

Creationists would have people believe that creationism is on the same playing field as the rest of scientific theories, when in reality it isn't.

What we call it really makes no difference.

(March 15, 2013 at 8:18 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Which definition?

I think creationism has to be in the scientific realm. That's what I think is fatally flawed about it.

The definition of science. A scientific theory has to be falsifiable - science advances through falsification, thus if a theory is not falsifiable it is - by definition - not scientific.

---

(March 15, 2013 at 8:31 am)Persuade Me Wrote: Creationism isn't - and can't currently be - a scientific theory, because it has no supporting evidence.

Evidence doesn't matter with theories. You can have a theory which has no evidence, and still present a scientific theory.

(March 15, 2013 at 8:07 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(March 13, 2013 at 8:57 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Creationism is known as a theory. Evolution is also a theory. I don't think we can use absolutes with these, definitely saying one is true and the other false. While I do believe creationism is false and evolution is true, technically, because of their statuses as "theories", we cannot say that they ARE true or that they ARE false. We can only believe them or not.

No No No NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO A THOUSAND FUCKING TIMES NO.

This is absolute fucking bullshit.

The theory of gravity is 'just a theory'. So is germ theory. So is the theory of general relativity. Are any of them less true because they are theories? No.

You want to dump creationism into the same playing field as the rest of these theories? Then it must be subject to the same testing and results that science demands in order for us to accept it as a factually accurate theory.

Guess what. Creationism fails at proving itself.

Evolution on the other hand, does not, and is a perfect explanation of how species have come to be on this earth, and YES whether people like it or not we've seen and proven that it fucking happens.

That we call any of these things a theory, has NO basis whatsoever on whether they be true or not.

Just because you and I don't like their classifications doesn't mean we can ignore them.

Saying that it is wrong to teach creationism presupposes that the correspondent theory of truth is the sole means of determining whether something is true or not (or something similar to that). I am not a creationist, but I don't think that it is a sin to understand the world in terms of abstractions and simpler concepts.

In fact, when you study science, you find that many things in science do not actually exist as objects, they are just abstractions of things that exist. Such it is also with language and metaphysics. What really exists is very difficult to day. I think traditional Bible believers are entitled to their abstractions just as science is.

That said, I do not believe the earth is 6000-10000 years old. But I do not see any reason to understand the concept of truth as specially aimed at appreciating certain types of abstractions as being fallacious while other abstracts as being legitimate.

The reality is that people know very little about the world.

I probably look like I'm flip-flopping with my views in this topic. Hahaha.

(March 16, 2013 at 1:06 pm)jstrodel Wrote: The reality is that people know very little about the world.

I think we know more than you think we do. We certainly know enough about the world to be able to accept a theory that is LEAGUES ahead of creationism, in terms of evidence and...well, logic.

That's what scientific research can get us. A good explaniation about how we are here. The theory of evolution holds water.

So, to excuse the theory of creationism because we just "know very little about the world" is an awful excuse.

(March 16, 2013 at 1:06 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Saying that it is wrong to teach creationism presupposes that the correspondent theory of truth is the sole means of determining whether something is true or not (or something similar to that). I am not a creationist, but I don't think that it is a sin to understand the world in terms of abstractions and simpler concepts.

In fact, when you study science, you find that many things in science do not actually exist as objects, they are just abstractions of things that exist. Such it is also with language and metaphysics. What really exists is very difficult to day. I think traditional Bible believers are entitled to their abstractions just as science is.

That said, I do not believe the earth is 6000-10000 years old. But I do not see any reason to understand the concept of truth as specially aimed at appreciating certain types of abstractions as being fallacious while other abstracts as being legitimate.

The reality is that people know very little about the world.

And what of the things we do know? What of the things that aren't abstractions? Things like evolution, that does have real evidence behind it. Science concerns itself with facts, and the facts are true regardless of belief. The theory of evolution reflects the facts that we can see.

You talk about these things as though they're on an even playing field but they really aren't; the fossil record, genetic data, and laboratory testing all confirm evolution. There's no abstraction there; it's all concrete and physical, and that's something that creationism doesn't have going for it. One is confirmed, and the other is an abstraction.

Now: which one of those should be taught in science class? The factual one, or the abstraction that holds no evidentiary value?

The signifier is different from the signified. What you call "facts" are just symbols that refer to things, typically things that don't actually exist. Science creates terminology that describes the things that they talk. You cannot go outside and meet a man called "punctuated equillibrium" who introduces himself using that term and reveals that his basic nature is revealed in in these terms, someone created that term to describe natural phenomenon.


People can't know things in them-self, the ding an sich, they know the phenomenological world. Why not let science proceed and just be a little humble about it? Much of it will be overturned in the future anyways, consider the science/philosophy world from 1000 years ago.

I would not consider it a sin. However, even Bill Nye suggests that it is not appropriate to teach children creationism.

http://youtu.be/gHbYJfwFgOU

Why do you say "even Bill Nye"? Wouldn't you assume that Bill Nye would be in science education because he was for mainstream science?

(March 16, 2013 at 1:34 pm)jstrodel Wrote: The signifier is different from the signified. What you call "facts" are just symbols that refer to things, typically things that don't actually exist. Science creates terminology that describes the things that they talk. You cannot go outside and meet a man called "punctuated equillibrium" who introduces himself using that term and reveals that his basic nature is revealed in in these terms, someone created that term to describe natural phenomenon.

That's true, but even if I could meet Mr Punctuated Equilibrium he could also be lying.

What I can really do, however, is research the fossil record and see that not only can we construct a clear evolutionary line for many animals, but also find that those animals occur at the correct time period and in the correct locations. I can also see the DNA evidence that confirms this. And, if I'm really difficult to convince, I can grab a few populations of short lived animals- like, say, fruit flies- and breed them until I can see the evolutionary changes begin to occur in them.

What such tests would one propose for creationism? Because... well, science needs tests. That's important.

Quote:People can't know things in them-self, the ding an sich, they know the phenomenological world. Why not let science proceed and just be a little humble about it? Much of it will be overturned in the future anyways, consider the science/philosophy world from 1000 years ago.

But you've got certainty about other things in your life. Why is science the only thing that needs to be humble about all this? Why do the facts need to be humble?

Besides, you're getting dangerously solipsistic to an almost unhelpful degree, there. If we can't be certain about anything, then what's the point of doing anything? Why make judgments at all?