Creationism sub-thread

[Tyndmyr]

Home school curriculum is still set by the state and you have to prove that you finish each module. IMO homeschooling has too many trade offs to make it a workable option.

No, it's generally not.

State standards vary somewhat, but the limits of state intrusion into my homeschooled upbringing were yearly SATs. Complete them roughly satisfactorily, and you were fine. That was it. Oh, and the test was sent TO the home to be administered there. No possibility of gaming that system, nope.

[Drumheller769]

Hmm well then, I guess its different per state...I didnt know that. I have a few friend who homeschool and everything they cover has to be sent in and state approved.

[KrytenKoro]

Public school is not strictly required. Private schools and homeschools exist(and, not coincidentally, creationists loooove home schooling). These can be perfectly valid options.

Private schools are pretty much off the board for a sizable portion of families due to how expensive they are, and home schooling it a completely different beast as well, I dont feel its comparable to what you get from public school, not just the learning, but social interactions as well.

My family was living paycheck to paycheck and was able to get me into the local Catholic school.

As was most every other family in town who cared to send their kid to a Catholic school.

Maybe it depends on how viciously your state's legislature has thrown schools under the bus.

[Tyndmyr]

Most religious schools are fairly affordable, and have options available for the needy to avoid paying. It's kind of their thing, yeah.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but the Catholic church will usually, when mentioning a fee, straight up tell you they can help if you can't afford it. The more fundamentalist schools(of which there are far less than catholic ones) tend to be very much more about the ideology than making money. Mostly, anyway. There's always someone who sees religious folks as in need of a good fleecing.

[Copper Bezel]

I was raised by Pentecostal fundamentalist homeschoolers in Kansas along with my five younger siblings. They were mercifully at least the old-Earth kind, but they had no difficulty constructing curriculum in which the only references to "evolution" were strawmen to debunk and the science textbooks included explanations of the moral decay caused by a materialistic view of the world, the history textbooks could not be read to permit the possibility that America was ever wrong about anything until the 1960s, the literature textbooks freely assumed a shared understanding of morality with the student at odds with that of the text under study, and the art history books superimposed fig leaves.

To my knowledge, there effectively were no standards, no standardized tests of any kind, etc.

Since I don't actually have any compunctions about calling it a culture war and treating it as such, though, I'd happily see this nonsense banned and send its advocates to proper reeducation camps if necessary.

[morriswalters]

To my knowledge, there effectively were no standards, no standardized tests of any kind, etc.

Since I don't actually have any compunctions about calling it a culture war and treating it as such, though, I'd happily see this nonsense banned and send its advocates to proper reeducation camps if necessary.

That seems to be straightforward enough. I assume you were deprogrammed? Or were you self liberating? And there are no proper reeducation camps, ask the Chinese or the Russians.

[Copper Bezel]

Mentioned earlier on in the thread, but I'm not sure which label works. There was a lot of "crisis of faith" and "disillusionment" stuff in my late teens, then I went to college and met normal people for the first time, and despite initial reservations and limited social skills, I'd more or less made the switch in a couple of years.

And yes, "reeducation camps" are a bit "not intended to be a factual statement" here, but I think it's probably only fair to acknowledge that I'm not wholly capable of considering their interests in good faith.

[morriswalters]

The plasticity of youth. I suspect it why we advance, child deciding for a moment that their parents are full of shit. It gives them a period where they evaluate their parents ideas more critically. Even YEC's don't live perfect lives and their kids get to see it. And you can't escape modern life. And you don't have consider their interests in good faith, personally I'm narcissistic. I consider them in terms of me. I don't want to be controlled that way, therefore I don't want to control them.

[Copper Bezel]

And admittedly, my stakes are different, if I'm considering what I would want in the situation from an entirely self-centered position. I don't have any intention to ever have children, so I don't have a stake in that fight. I do have quite a lot of LGBT friends and happen to be the Q myself, so the threat of theocratic power over civil law is a very real one for me. These are people who are quite directly coming after me and mine.

[morriswalters]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying don't fight, but try to leave space to make your enemy someone you can live with when the fighting is over, if it ever is.

[Whizbang]

Honestly, this isn't a game of converting or making peace with the current generations, but instead a game of who can convert/deconvert/breed the most in future generations. As with racism and sexism, we merely have to hold firm while the older generations die out. We don't need to keep any sort of relations with them, because they(and likely we) will be dead.

[jseah]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying don't fight, but try to leave space to make your enemy someone you can live with when the fighting is over, if it ever is.

Why not just try to 'win'? It's not like the YECs are aiming to make space to live with the other people. Their mission statement is to convert everyone...

(I dislike them mainly due to the education interference, their effect on abortion and stem cell research)

[morriswalters]

I don't have to live with the next generation. And currently we are winning.

[sevenperforce]

I was raised by Pentecostal fundamentalist homeschoolers in Kansas along with my five younger siblings. They were mercifully at least the old-Earth kind, but they had no difficulty constructing curriculum in which the only references to "evolution" were strawmen to debunk and the science textbooks included explanations of the moral decay caused by a materialistic view of the world, the history textbooks could not be read to permit the possibility that America was ever wrong about anything until the 1960s, the literature textbooks freely assumed a shared understanding of morality with the student at odds with that of the text under study, and the art history books superimposed fig leaves.

To my knowledge, there effectively were no standards, no standardized tests of any kind, etc.

Since I don't actually have any compunctions about calling it a culture war and treating it as such, though, I'd happily see this nonsense banned and send its advocates to proper reeducation camps if necessary.

There are quite a few home school graduates who are now strongly advocating responsible homeschooling standards, like testing, curriculum review, health standards, and even the requirement of some kind of degree or certificate.

The only people decrying such standards are the paleoconservatives who are steadily moving further and further away from normalcy.

[Tyndmyr]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying don't fight, but try to leave space to make your enemy someone you can live with when the fighting is over, if it ever is.

Feh. If someone can't live with me because I said they were wrong, then that's on them.

[morriswalters]

Feh. If someone can't live with me because I said they were wrong, then that's on them.

I believe that before this petered out the first time the word was dangerous, not wrong. And I don't know about you, but snakes are dangerous, and I kill them if they get too close.

[Tyndmyr]

Feh. If someone can't live with me because I said they were wrong, then that's on them.

I believe that before this petered out the first time the word was dangerous, not wrong. And I don't know about you, but snakes are dangerous, and I kill them if they get too close.

Okay? They're dangerous. They can cease being dangerous, if they wish. If me using the d word once means they can never tolerate living in peace, well...doesn't that prove the point?

[morriswalters]

Okay? They're dangerous. They can cease being dangerous, if they wish.

I don't live with snakes, I kill them. They can't be different then what they are. If YEC's are truly dangerous I would do what I do with snakes. I wouldn't want them next door, ever. The list of humans that I consider dangerous is also the list of humans I have no compunction with pulling the switch on, the day they come up for execution. We currently label people as sex offenders and put them in a shadow world were the punishment never really ends. And we do so because we consider them dangerous. Labels count.

[Whizbang]

There is no such thing as degrees of danger or appropriate responses. Death to all. Ridicule and hostility is not enough. All or nothing.

There can be only one.

[Copper Bezel]

Yeah, nevermind creationists, that's a disturbing enough line of thinking to apply to the sex offenders. = /

[Quercus]

Okay? They're dangerous. They can cease being dangerous, if they wish.

I don't live with snakes, I kill them. They can't be different then what they are. If YEC's are truly dangerous I would do what I do with snakes. I wouldn't want them next door, ever. The list of humans that I consider dangerous is also the list of humans I have no compunction with pulling the switch on, the day they come up for execution. We currently label people as sex offenders and put them in a shadow world were the punishment never really ends. And we do so because we consider them dangerous. Labels count.

That's a very, well, binary definition of dangerous, and I would argue, not a very useful one. Not everything that is dangerous is sufficiently dangerous that the costs of getting rid of it immediately, or in many cases at all, are worth it. Dogs are dangerous, fire is dangerous, various jobs are dangerous, bad drivers are dangerous, crossing the road is dangerous. Danger is a continuous scale from entirely safe through to certain death to everyone. No-one on this thread has ever claimed that YEC's are sufficiently dangerous to justify killing them, and no-one else AFAIK thinks that "dangerous" == "must be killed".

I don't know whether most YEC's views are sufficiently harmful as a whole for them to be labelled as dangerous, but it's clear that some of the views that typically go along with YEC are more dangerous to society than not holding those views - for example sending gay kids to "conversion therapy" increases suicide rates, and opposing stem cell research on theological grounds delays medical advances and results in unnecessary deaths.

Plenty of people, perhaps even most, are dangerous in some aspect of their lives, including people I love and respect - anyone who drives when they are tired is dangerous, anyone who has a poor understanding of statistics and serves on a jury is dangerous, I've been dangerous at various points in my life (e.g. skiing too fast for my skill level and risking crashing into people). What alternative word for "increases risk to those around them by their actions" would you prefer to use?

[morriswalters]

That's a very, well, binary definition of dangerous, and I would argue, not a very useful one.

This isn't about reality is it? Labels are shortcuts, like the label faggot. They aren't chosen to accurately portray the target. They paint a picture. So while while labeling a YEC as dangerous may have an element of truth, in terms of what they might accomplish, that isn't the point is it? What you are attempting to do is to paint an easy picture, one that is desirable to your goal. You want the binary, even though it is a lie. So dangerous works. They do the same thing.

[Quercus]

What you are attempting to do is to paint an easy picture, one that is desirable to your goal. You want the binary, even though it is a lie.

Huh? What part of my post gave you that impression? I actually think it's probably less than helpful to say that YEC's are dangerous, rather than saying that specific actions which some YEC take are dangerous (which is why I said "I don't know whether most YEC's views are sufficiently harmful as a whole for them to be labelled as dangerous") - the latter approach provides on the whole a more useful and balanced view, that avoids labelling people and setting up an antagonistic framework.

It seems faintly ridiculous to accuse me of wanting a binary when I have included myself and many of my friends and family in the same category as YEC i.e. "dangerous in some aspect of their lives".

As I said before "I don't hate creationists, I hate the aspects of creationist doctrine that are harmful to others, as I hate all such harmful doctrines whoever espouses them."

I agree with you about the dangers of labels, but equally we must be able to name the effects of things in order to have any sort of meaningful conversation - if a doctrine leads to actions which, on balance, are harmful to others, then that is a dangerous doctrine. It might not necessarily be very dangerous, and considerations of personal freedom may very likely mean that it should be permitted despite its danger.

I also fully acknowledge that ones worldview affects what one sees as dangerous - I'm sure that most creationists would consider my views on many, many subjects to be dangerous, and as long as they respect my freedom to hold those views and make my choices accordingly they are, and should be, entirely free to say so.

[morriswalters]

My apologies, I was careless in my phrasing.

As I said before "I don't hate creationists, I hate the aspects of creationist doctrine that are harmful to others, as I hate all such harmful doctrines whoever espouses them."

This is the salient distinction that I have attempted to make.

[gmalivuk]

Okay? They're dangerous. They can cease being dangerous, if they wish.

I don't live with snakes, I kill them. They can't be different then what they are. If YEC's are truly dangerous I would do what I do with snakes. I wouldn't want them next door, ever. The list of humans that I consider dangerous is also the list of humans I have no compunction with pulling the switch on, the day they come up for execution.

This is such a ridiculous statement that I can't believe you typed it sober and with a straight face.

In addition to the utterly absurd binary others have already addressed, I have to laugh at your choice of snakes as the example, given how many people I know who keep them as pets. (Dogs kill more people than snakes, guns kill more people than dogs, and having a swimming pool is a bigger danger to your kids than having a gun.)
---
Object if you like to our calling YECs "dangerous", but there's no need to do so with this level of black-and-white bullshit. If it is wrong to call them dangerous, it's not because all dangerous things and people must be destroyed without hesitation.

[morriswalters]

This is such a ridiculous statement that I can't believe you typed it sober and with a straight face.

Sorry to disappoint you. I know people who keep snakes as well. And my friends who live in Appalachia, who have kids, kill all snakes on sight if they are in their yards.

In addition to the utterly absurd binary others have already addressed, I have to laugh at your choice of snakes as the example, given how many people I know who keep them as pets. (Dogs kill more people than snakes, guns kill more people than dogs, and having a swimming pool is a bigger danger to your kids than having a gun.)

You're quick. It's all about perception. I never heard someone use a pejorative based on swimming pools. And just as obviously guns don't kill people, people kill people. And if I say Pit Bull instead of dog, your fear meter will climb. If I want to allude to your trustworthiness I might call you a snake in the grass. Its all about labels.

If it is wrong to call them dangerous, it's not because all dangerous things and people must be destroyed without hesitation.

No, in this country we restrict and use the law to regulate swimming pools, dogs, guns and snakes. And almost all other things considered dangerous.

edit removed redundency

[krogoth]

in this country we restrict and use the law to regulate swimming pools, dogs, guns and snakes. And almost all other things considered dangerous.

That's why law prevents creationism to be taught in school, it is demonstrably wrong, and it is generally considered detrimental to teach people lies, the affect is negative to the person, and the effects can be dangerous, as have been listed.

[morriswalters]

As it turns out that is incorrect.

[krogoth]

I made several points there, what part is incorrect?
That law prevents creationism taught in school? Depends on where you live.
That creationism is demonstrably wrong? Astronomy, Geology, Archaeology, Biology, to name a few sciences give a consensus to it being wrong.
That lying to people affects people in a negative way? I would say it's fairly clear incorrect or insufficient information can lead to incorrect or detrimental actions or decisions.

Can you be more clear as what is incorrect and why it is incorrect?

[morriswalters]

The law, in so far as I understand it, doesn't prevent the teaching of Creationism. The establishment clause may prevent Government funds from being used but that is about it(I may be referring to the wrong law, but anyway). Certainly Church Schools can teach it at will as can Churches. In the US you would have some hurdles to jump if you intended to ban the teaching of it, particularly in venues other than public schools. It might not be impossible, snake handling is unlawful, but the freedom to practice your Religion is guaranteed.

That creationism is demonstrably wrong? Astronomy, Geology, Archaeology, Biology, to name a few sciences give a consensus to it being wrong.

I agree, but the point is moot. I can believe that the moon is made of green cheese if I so desire. Science isn't law. And if what you can demonstrate meant anything then there wouldn't be Creationists in the first place. And quite frankly you would play hell demonstrating anything. What you really mean is that people that the major portion of the public will never see have gathered data and done experiments leading to conclusions about how things have occurred over geologic time. And that you trust what they are telling you. I suggest you try and set up a demonstration of carbon dating for instance. The bulk of the populace will never look through a microscope much less be in the position to understand the underpinnings of science. I am sometimes surprised that people here somehow believe that the majority of the country understands science. This has not been my experience. And Ben Carson managed to become a Neurosurgeon.

That lying to people affects people in a negative way? I would say it's fairly clear incorrect or insufficient information can lead to incorrect or detrimental actions or decisions.

Sure but again the point is meaningless. From your perspective Creationists are wrong, or dangerous, or stupid. But their internal process is happy believing what they want to believe. So it is detrimental to you, not to them. You live in a democracy(assuming you live in the US). That doesn't guarantee anything other than the majority rules, with enough cutouts to keep the majority from killing the minorities they don't like. It doesn't suggest that it will produce true, correct, or even moral actions. It would be perfectly possible for Creationists to gain the upper hand, rewrite the Constitution and ban Evolution and establish Christianity as the State Religion. Just as it would be perfectly possible for Religion to be outlawed. Go figure.

[Copper Bezel]

The law, in so far as I understand it, doesn't prevent the teaching of Creationism.

No, we've left out the implied "in public schools" for thrift, in the same way that anyone who has ever entered into any discussion about "teaching evolution" or "teaching Creationism" generally does.

And that's precisely the kind of point you're making in each assertion in most of the rest of your post, which to me looks like a wrong-headed crusade against language more than it looks like anything to do with Creationism. It is possible to point out trivial or unstated-but-acknowledged exceptions to damn near any statement about social objects. If you want to exchange technically correct and trivially true statements, you could do so just as easily in a discussion that is (nominally) about any topic. If you really want to "correct" people with them, you could do so in any topic that wasn't about math. I don't see particular bearing on the subject of Creationism.

It would be perfectly possible for Creationists to gain the upper hand, rewrite the Constitution and ban Evolution and establish Christianity as the State Religion.

And become a danger to the global society in the way IS is, I should imagine.

Staunchly refusing to consider the best available evidence and instead insulating oneself in a system of superficially compelling lies is most definitely not a morally neutral act. Don't even bullshit with the "the scientists could be lying, have you ever seen a carbon atom" nonsense. It is not hard to figure out who's lying. It is not hard to understand which sets of social incentives move which groups in which directions. Some individual Creationists might be, to some degree or another, well-meaning and benighted victims of deceit. The institution as a whole is an obvious lie with obvious incentives contrary to the wellbeing of humanity.

If you want to question more deeply and precisely what the wellbeing of humanity is before making any hasty assumptions, feel free to fuck off.

[Quercus]

What you really mean is that people that the major portion of the public will never see have gathered data and done experiments leading to conclusions about how things have occurred over geologic time. And that you trust what they are telling you. I suggest you try and set up a demonstration of carbon dating for instance. The bulk of the populace will never look through a microscope much less be in the position to understand the underpinnings of science.

And this is a colossal failure of education. IMO pretty much everyone should leave school having understood basic philosophy of science. The point about trusting scientists is very close to the argument that "science is just another form of faith", which falls down because the reasons for trusting science are different to the reasons for trusting pretty much anything else. I, in general, trust science because every time I have delved deeper, scientific consensus has been founded on clear, logical, documented evidence. Because on those occasions where I have replicated that evidence (e.g. in school science classes) the evidence of my own eyes and hands has supported the conclusions given. Because where there are disagreements within science those are visible , and you can see scientific consensus changing as new evidence comes to light. Good science encourages people not to trust it, and that's a large part of the reason that it is, in fact, usually trustworthy - it says "don't believe me, great, here's how these conclusions were reached, see if you can pick holes in it".

On the contrary whenever I have delved deeper into YEC the explanations have either been explicitly faith based, or argue explicitly towards a pre-determined conclusion.

The forms of trust are different , and if science education is sufficiently poor that they look the same, then that's a problem of education, and speaks to the validity of what people have been saying in this thread.

That lying to people affects people in a negative way? I would say it's fairly clear incorrect or insufficient information can lead to incorrect or detrimental actions or decisions.

Sure but again the point is meaningless. From your perspective Creationists are wrong, or dangerous, or stupid. But their internal process is happy believing what they want to believe. So it is detrimental to you, not to them. You live in a democracy(assuming you live in the US). That doesn't guarantee anything other than the majority rules, with enough cutouts to keep the majority from killing the minorities they don't like. It doesn't suggest that it will produce true, correct, or even moral actions. It would be perfectly possible for Creationists to gain the upper hand, rewrite the Constitution and ban Evolution and establish Christianity as the State Religion. Just as it would be perfectly possible for Religion to be outlawed. Go figure.

Yes, so what? The notion that if a majority disagrees with you, then anything you say is pointless, because you live in a democracy is, frankly, very strange. Effective democracy thrives on debate, persuasion, argument, compromise and dissent.

[gmalivuk]

This is such a ridiculous statement that I can't believe you typed it sober and with a straight face.

Sorry to disappoint you. I know people who keep snakes as well. And my friends who live in Appalachia, who have kids, kill all snakes on sight if they are in their yards.

I know country folks who kill all kinds of shit on sight, regardless of real or imagined danger levels.

And if I say Pit Bull instead of dog, your fear meter will climb.

You keep picking the silliest examples. I love pit bulls, with their big goofy grins and excellent demeanor (they are fantastic protective babysitters for children). Knowing it's a pit instead of an unknown breed or mutt makes be more relaxed, all else being equal, not more fearful.

You could at least have the decency to stop saying "you" in these specific examples when it might be interpreted as meaning me (or whoever you're quoting) in particular, rather than people in general.

[krogoth]

The law, in so far as I understand it, doesn't prevent the teaching of Creationism. The establishment clause may prevent Government funds from being used but that is about it(I may be referring to the wrong law, but anyway). Certainly Church Schools can teach it at will as can Churches. In the US you would have some hurdles to jump if you intended to ban the teaching of it, particularly in venues other than public schools. It might not be impossible, snake handling is unlawful, but the freedom to practice your Religion is guaranteed.

"The United States of America is not just a democracy – it is a constitutional democracy. What that means is that our government is designed to express not only the will of the majority (democracy), but also to simultaneously protect the unalienable rights of minorities and the powerless. That is an extremely important point because it is the constitutional protections of minorities and the powerless that add civility, humanity, and decency to what could otherwise be a barbaric nation – democratic or not."

That creationism is demonstrably wrong? Astronomy, Geology, Archaeology, Biology, to name a few sciences give a consensus to it being wrong.

I agree, but the point is moot. I can believe that the moon is made of green cheese if I so desire. Science isn't law. And if what you can demonstrate meant anything then there wouldn't be Creationists in the first place.

To quote House, "Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people."

That lying to people affects people in a negative way? I would say it's fairly clear incorrect or insufficient information can lead to incorrect or detrimental actions or decisions.

Sure but again the point is meaningless. From your perspective Creationists are wrong, or dangerous, or stupid. But their internal process is happy believing what they want to believe. So it is detrimental to you, not to them. You live in a democracy(assuming you live in the US). That doesn't guarantee anything other than the majority rules, with enough cutouts to keep the majority from killing the minorities they don't like. It doesn't suggest that it will produce true, correct, or even moral actions. It would be perfectly possible for Creationists to gain the upper hand, rewrite the Constitution and ban Evolution and establish Christianity as the State Religion. Just as it would be perfectly possible for Religion to be outlawed. Go figure.

Just because people don't see it as detrimental to them self doesn't mean it isn't. As I noted earlier teaching a rejection of science(or scientific method) is detrimental, lack of critical thinking skills leads to so many bad things, anti-vaxers, abstinence only education, gay correction camps, prayer over medication, exploration of the ignorant for money. I could probably go on with this list.

What is possible is of little consequence to what is right, and what is true. Creationism isn't true, and leads people to do what isn't right, because they do not have the clarity or mind or critical thinking skills to see the detriment they do. I have listed repeatedly the detriment is measurable. They are demonstrably wrong, and demonstrably detrimental. They have every right to be wrong, but when being wrong is detrimental, their rights can be revoked, and that's why it's not taught in public schools.

To Copper Bezel, exactly.

[morriswalters]

You keep picking the silliest examples. I love pit bulls, with their big goofy grins and excellent demeanor (they are fantastic protective babysitters for children). Knowing it's a pit instead of an unknown breed or mutt makes be more relaxed, all else being equal, not more fearful.

That's why the breed has been banned in a number of places and why they have been voted dog most likely to bite. However they don't believe in Creationism so I guess they aren't really dangerous.

No, we've left out the implied "in public schools" for thrift, in the same way that anyone who has ever entered into any discussion about "teaching evolution" or "teaching Creationism" generally does.

That's very convenient. It the why that matters. The implication is that there is something peculiar to Creationism that forbids the practice.

That's why law prevents creationism to be taught in school, it is demonstrably wrong, and it is generally considered detrimental to teach people lies, the affect is negative to the person, and the effects can be dangerous, as have been listed.

As written this is incorrect, especially in response to what he was quoting when he wrote it. The law doesn't forbid it because it's dangerous, it forbids it because of the Constitutions establishment clause. Which prevents it from expressing any opinion at all.

Staunchly refusing to consider the best available evidence and instead insulating oneself in a system of superficially compelling lies is most definitely not a morally neutral act. Don't even bullshit with the "the scientists could be lying, have you ever seen a carbon atom" nonsense. It is not hard to figure out who's lying. It is not hard to understand which sets of social incentives move which groups in which directions. Some individual Creationists might be, to some degree or another, well-meaning and benighted victims of deceit. The institution as a whole is an obvious lie with obvious incentives contrary to the wellbeing of humanity.

Obviously you can't read. I said nothing about moral positions or right or wrong. I never said or implied that science was lying about carbon dating. I said you can't demonstrate it. This is trivial. The implication always is that there is something obvious in science. There isn't. It takes the application of significant effort to understand something as complex as carbon dating not to mention special tools generally only available in labs. It requires the trust of those people who you are selling it to. And without that trust you are talking to a wall.

feel free to fuck off.

Very good argument, A creationist would start reading the Bible to me and praying over my misbegotten immortal soul. While reminding me that I would burn in hell. Yours is so much more compact.

And this is a colossal failure of education. IMO pretty much everyone should leave school having understood basic philosophy of science. The point about trusting scientists is very close to the argument that "science is just another form of faith", which falls down because the reasons for trusting science are different to the reasons for trusting pretty much anything else

I don't suppose that it has ever occurred to you that this is true because of where you are standing in relationship to the question. In point of fact Science is a belief system. The first two sentences demonstrate what I mean. The first is true, it is a failure of education. The second is wishful thinking. It makes assumptions that aren't really rational. The philosophy of science isn't all that easy to understand. There is no reason to believe that you can teach everyone to understand it. What you may wish to do is indoctrinate the inmates of those prisons we call schools so that when John Q Scientist says that red is red that we except it. But that concept is an entirely different from what you are saying.

The forms of trust are different , and if science education is sufficiently poor that they look the same, then that's a problem of education, and speaks to the validity of what people have been saying in this thread.

This is true, but what you are actually saying is, if only you would listen to what I'm saying you could see that I am right, trust me. That the forms of trust are inherently different is precisely the point. The audience you are trying to sell to isn't in the echo chamber of science, they are a group that doesn't trust science. My point has been all along that you don't engender trust of these people by calling them dangerous. You engender trust by being patient not letting it become a name calling contest. But I get it that people here don't want to engender trust with Creationists. And the battle in the US isn't about the dangers of Creationism in any case, were it, the question would be moot in fairly short order since a significant number of people believe in Creationism. Enough of them to rewrite the Constitution if they were smart enough.

[Quercus]

I don't suppose that it has ever occurred to you that this is true because of where you are standing in relationship to the question. In point of fact Science is a belief system. The first two sentences demonstrate what I mean. The first is true, it is a failure of education. The second is wishful thinking. It makes assumptions that aren't really rational. The philosophy of science isn't all that easy to understand. There is no reason to believe that you can teach everyone to understand it.

I acknowledge that I am coming at this from a position of considerable educational privilege (being most of the way through a PhD in biology), but I do feel that your view is unnecessarily pessimistic. I was probably a little strong saying "pretty much everyone", but I think we can do a hell of a lot better than we do today. I would be extremely surprised if it's not possible to give 80-90% of kids an understanding of science that is sufficient to demonstrate that it does not rely on blind trust in authority. Maybe I'm being massively overoptimistic - but I think it's probably worth a shot.

My point has been all along that you don't engender trust of these people by calling them dangerous. You engender trust by being patient not letting it become a name calling contest. But I get it that people here don't want to engender trust with Creationists.

I'm conflicted on this. What you mention is my preferred approach to conflict - I like talking, I like dialogue, I like open discussion without name calling. But, if I came to most creationists purely as I am as a human being - as someone who is a pantheist, someone who is bisexual, someone who is genderqueer, can you honestly say I would receive a patient, civil and open response to my presence in return? Hell, I'm willing to give it a go if I ever find myself with the opportunity (YEC's are a bit thin on the ground in central London), but I'm not all that hopeful.

[gmalivuk]

Places have banned pits because of how dangerous people think they are.

Why do you keep bringing up examples of people with shitty risk assessment, morriswalters?

[Copper Bezel]

As written this is incorrect, especially in response to what he was quoting when he wrote it. The law doesn't forbid it because it's dangerous, it forbids it because of the Constitutions establishment clause. Which prevents it from expressing any opinion at all.

No, wrong, demonstrably incorrect. The fact that public school curricula do not include Creationism in the US has jack all to do with the Establishment Clause. Wrong facts espoused by religions are not the only wrong facts disallowed in public school curricula. Cdesign propnentsists might, for instance, only obviously have been shilling for a religion, rather than being actually selling the religion itself, but the proposals to bring their obviously wrong and unscientific arguments into school curricula were rejected on their own merits. Whether or not a thing is true definitely has some bearing, however indirectly that may come about, on whether teachers in US schools are allowed to teach it. That is also extremely obvious in the process by which the science of biological evolution was itself accepted into US public school curricula in the first place.

The implication is that there is something peculiar to Creationism that forbids the practice.

The fact that it's demonstrably and obviously wrong and lying isn't "peculiar" to Creationism, but it's a fair bit more widespread than belief in a flat Earth and this sort of thing, so it comes up more as a point of contention. The Flat Earth Society hasn't taken any school boards to the courts that I know of, etc.

I never said or implied that science was lying about carbon dating.

I didn't mention carbon dating, I mentioned carbon atoms. You have correctly intuited the reference of the statement far enough to assume that much. I find it difficult to believe that you have not further made the connection to the category of arguments that I am claiming your argument falls under, those that draw a false equivalence between science and religion in terms of their relative dependence on arguments from authority. If you made that further step, you would know that carbon dating was not relevant to anything either of us was talking about and wouldn't need to point out that you hadn't referred to it. You may have your red herring back, I do not much like fish.

The implication always is that there is something obvious in science. There isn't. It takes the application of significant effort to understand something as complex as carbon dating not to mention special tools generally only available in labs. It requires the trust of those people who you are selling it to. And without that trust you are talking to a wall.

And I specifically said that the reasons for "trusting" the scientific consensus insofar as that is a thing that a person does are the obvious thing, or specifically the thing that is "not hard," because I do think it's important to say that it's also not a trivial step, either.

What you may wish to do is indoctrinate the inmates of those prisons we call schools so that when John Q Scientist says that red is red that we accept it.

John Q. Scientist is not the whole of the global scientific establishment. When all of the people who study a particular thing agree that x is the thing observed, you'd better have a damn good reason for coming to the conclusion that they're lying. You do not need to know anything of physics, biology, chemistry, or psychology to practice skepticism of social institutions.

In point of fact Science is a belief system.

No.

Very good argument, A creationist would start reading the Bible to me and praying over my misbegotten immortal soul. While reminding me that I would burn in hell. Yours is so much more compact.

It's not your beliefs that ultimately offend me, mw. I think I was pretty straightforward about that, too. I don't think you have anything substantive to say on this subject, by which I might then take offense, and I don't know whether you substantively disagree with anything in particular that anyone else has said in the thread. So far as I can tell, you're engaging in semantics trolling for its own sake. As I said, it is my honest belief that that behavior could be translated to any other thread on this forum, and be equally annoying, insubstantial, and counterproductive.

That's why the breed has been banned in a number of places and why they have been voted dog most likely to bite.

Actually, they're not significantly more aggressive than other breeds, and many others are more so. They're also a target of media scaremongering - if there's a dog attack in the newspaper, they won't bother to mention the breed unless it is a pit bull, and will call it that even if it's a mix....

[morriswalters]

I'm conflicted on this. What you mention is my preferred approach to conflict - I like talking, I like dialogue, I like open discussion without name calling. But, if I came to most creationists purely as I am as a human being - as someone who is a pantheist, someone who is bisexual, someone who is genderqueer, can you honestly say I would receive a patient, civil and open response to my presence in return? Hell, I'm willing to give it a go if I ever find myself with the opportunity (YEC's are a bit thin on the ground in central London), but I'm not all that hopeful.

No they wouldn't, they probably wouldn't call a disgusting faggot, or do any direct harm to you. But they would design laws that might deprive you of things you consider a necessity of life, if given the opportunity. So you are right to be wary of them. But it doesn't change anything in any real sense. As an example Copper Bezel suggested that I should fuck off. When he/she or it said that the dialog ended. And I now take the position that he/she or it can do me the favor of fucking off as well. And so it goes. However right, or moral or whatever I'm not listening any more. That's called ending the conversation.

In terms of education we are pushing the limits of what it is possible to do with it. Certainly in high schools in the US. Creationism isn't the only stupid and destructive belief that exists here. By some estimates over 50 percent of the people believe in ghosts. My sister does and I have spent an inordinate amount of time through the years trying to change that without success. However she has moved from being a Jehovah's Witness, to Catholicism, to her current position of questioning Religion overall. I have refused to think of her as dangerous at any time. She has elegantly compartmentalized her life so as to make peace with the conflicts that exist for her.

I acknowledge that I am coming at this from a position of considerable educational privilege (being most of the way through a PhD in biology), but I do feel that your view is unnecessarily pessimistic.

Pessimism is an acquired vice. And I don't imply that your advantages of education are in anyway a bad thing. But over time the mere existence of who and what you perceive yourself to be will be more persuasive than any label you place on Creationists in terms of showing them that your are as human as they are, with all that implies. There was a time a 2 or so hundred years ago that science was a demonstrable phenomena. Citizen scientists or the average man could examine the world and reassure themselves of the facts. It hasn't been that way for some time. To practice science today requires training of a type not available to everyone. Your PHD is an example. Advanced math and statistics, physics, biology and so on.

Why do you keep bringing up examples of people with shitty risk assessment, morriswalters?

It's tempting to say that I'm trolling you, but the reality is that overall that is exactly what is practiced by the human race, shitty risk assessment. We do things as a society when we believe something is dangerous. We regulate it. Pit Bulls aside, we regulate the possession of dogs. All dogs are dangerous depending upon the circumstances. We mandate shots to prevent rabies because dogs can be a vector, proscribe how much they can bark and require licensing in most jurisdictions and on and on and on.

[Copper Bezel]

As an example Copper Bezel suggested that I should fuck off. When he/she or it said that the dialog ended. And I now take the position that he/she or it can do me the favor of fucking off as well. And so it goes. However right, or moral or whatever I'm not listening any more. That's called ending the conversation.

If you read that sentence closely enough to recognize the conditional, and you feel that you meet it,

If you want to question more deeply and precisely what the wellbeing of humanity is before making any hasty assumptions, feel free to fuck off.

Then yes, that is best, because you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this conversation and are a waste of my time and everyone else's here.