My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

Well put.I think that it is very very important to talk to people like Taz and to explain to them the repurcussions of their statements. Taz believes that he/she is right because it is their faith that allows them to survive in his/hers environment.The problem with empirical thinkers like us, Panda, is that we don't realise why fundamentalism exists in the first place. Taz believes what he/she does because Taz does not have any other tools in their basket to help him/her with the problems in their lives.It is these issues/problems that we must help Taz with in order to get him/her to abandon the folly of fundamentalist thought.kind regards,Acalepha

There are thousands of different creation theories. A summary that best describes them all would go something like this.The world magically appeared and homo sapiens were created.The myths and legend of an ethnic group reflect the values of that particular group.You cannot teach about Genesis without imparting some of the Christian values to the student. This is the same about every other ethnic group that has a creation mythos.So who decides the values we teach and do not teach?kind regards,Acalepha

Thank you for your reply.Here is my problem.

quote:

---

Right, so you have to go with a diluted-down vague non-descript version of creation like Intelligent Design.

---

Ok.I am all ears.Please give me a diluted down, vague, non-descript version of Intelligent Design that I can use when teaching my high school biology classes.I eagerly await your answer.kind regards,Acalepha

You use the term racist as only applying to the prejudging of different "racial" groups. I don't believe that "racial" groups exist. I use the term racist in a more general way. I use it to describe the prejudice against someone who belongs to a different ethnic group than your own. Accepting or denying the values of an ethnic group denotes racism for me as it implies the acceptance or rejection of that ethnic group.thank you for your responsekind regards,Acalepha

I didn't make it up, but here you go:

quote:

---

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

---

If we could find empirical evidence that suggests that, say, some biological function had to have emerged via a diliberate and guided process, then we could teach about that evidence in a biology class.

Ok.Do you see how weak your statement is. On one hand, we have biology that has all this empirical evident to support the theory of evolution and your statement that says "Someone just decided to make everything one day."Do you think that people like Taz would be okay with your idea of what creation is? I get the impression that Taz likes all the values and stories associated with the creation mythos. Is he okay with giving all that up?kind regards,Acalepha

I can assure you that people who are predominately of Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid origin do exist. I'm not sure what the point of denying that would be. So you believe that Christians, which would include Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Arabs, and Asians are an ethnic group, while Muslims who would include those same peoples in different ratios constitute yet another ethnic group.I think your use of the term "race" to refer to religious beliefs is a gross misuse of the English language. You were rightly called on it. Religious discrimination isn't racism.

Not exactly, but whatever, its beside the point. Your delimma is solved by using a non-descript version of creationism like ID. The next problem is finding the empirical evidence for it. Maybe, I dunno. Depends on how much he has to follow the Bible versus how much he wants to follow empirical evidence.By the way, have you ever heard of roleplaying? Taz isn't being serious.

Sorry, but I have to call you out on this one. Race is an arbitrary classification and as such, does not exist as a classification with any scientific value.Edited by DBlevins, : added scientific value

I hope you can see the inherent danger in using the phrase "had to have".Scientists try to not use that phrase, as it denotes certainty; without doubt.That is one reason Creation science is NOT science.

You may be technically right, not sure, but to most people that hear the term racism, they think of KKK, segregation, apartheid, words like nigger, spick, wop, slope, white trash....ect. I sure dont think of the christian who hates Islam or people hating all Catholics because some of their priest molested children.I live in the south, NC, That might be a limiting factor for me because I look at racism in the classical sense of some people hate me because I am white, and some white people hate blacks...and everyone else who isn't white by their standards.I could be wrong.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Kind of, but not really. Meh, not so much... it doesn't have to.For example, there had to have been a common ancestor between chimps and humans for the ToE to be correct. Only if you force the certainty beyond the normal tentativity-included everyday usage of the words.

I never claimed that race had any scientific value or that it wasn't arbitrary. But whatever little meaning or import "race" has, doesn't make religious identification either a race or an ethnic group.

Yes, you are correct, but there-in lies the rub. Chimps do not have to be related to humans. It very well could have been a God who created humans distinct from chimps. Or it could have been aliens. But we are and it is the most likely scenario beyond any reasonable doubt, otherwise it would call for a complete overhall of our understanding of genetics and ancestry if we found it were not true.To put it in another way. You're positing a level of certainty that, if not true, leaves you open to ridicule. It leaves you open to the fallacy of "The God of the Gaps". If it HAD to have happened that way, but we find later it could have happened through a natural process, then your whole argument falls apart. Not so. It isn't science if you base your conclusions on a priori arguments.

I guess I was confused when you called out Acelalpha for saying: and you saying: It appears to me to be a positive statement that racial classifications do exist. You might have been more clear by affirming that they don't exist and calling out Acelalpha on his contradiction in using religion as a classification. Otherwise, why even affirm that race exists?Do you claim that race exists, but it has no scientific value? By what criteria would you say so?