This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

College Professor defines Creationism to his freshman

#21the final bahamutPosted 6/26/2011 2:31:04 PM
Creationist do not believe the earth is 10,000 years old. Niether are we all united.

Yes you are. All creationism is united in denying factual data and adhering to make-belief that has no basis in reality, in so far as God isn't pulling the world's greatest troll face.
---
E ys Bahamut! oui risyhc puna sa! Oui uvvaht sa cahcac!!!
DISCLAIMER: I'm not accountable for this post. I don't know English I just hit keys at random.
#22serpentslayerPosted 6/26/2011 3:00:26 PM
Giacomo Hawkins posted...
How is creationism pertinent to philosophy?

As part of a discussion about personal beliefs and how people come to the conclusions they do. The creation and dissemination of knowledge, beliefs, and values. A discussion of logical fallacies.


I guess... The first two sentences sound like they would be better served in a psychology and sociology class, respectively.
---
God is man helping man: this is the way to everlasting glory. -Pliny the Elder
#23Julian_CaesarPosted 6/26/2011 6:44:40 PM
Yes you are. All creationism is united in denying factual data and adhering to make-belief that has no basis in reality, in so far as God isn't pulling the world's greatest troll face.

Surely you can't be serious?

First of all, there is no denial of factual data involved in the suggestion that God created everything. For this to be true, the scientific community would have to be in possession of evidence that disproves the possibility that God created the Earth. And insofar as God is an inherently non-scientific entity, such data does not exist for the simple reason that it CANNOT exist. While there is certainly no scientific data in support of creationism, there is also no denial of established fact either.

Secondly, the assertion that creationism has no basis in reality is an impossible judgment for you to make. Or at the very least, an extremely poor use of the word "reality." Because if you mean "the plane of existence on which physical matter exists and interacts" then I agree. But if you mean "the entirety of everything that exists and has existed" with the implied assertion that supernatural (i.e. outside the universe) things cannot exist...then that is a judgment beyond your authority to make. And beyond science's authority, for that matter. Science only has authority over that which it can observe. So to declare that science is the authority on all existence is to assume a priori that nothing can existence beyond the realm of science's observation. Which is, of course, a very unscientific thing to say (namely, to make an assumption that cannot be verified by scientific observation).

Thirdly, creationism is nowhere close to being unified. There are schools of thought which predate Darwin himself which believed that creationism was accomplished by God-directed evolution.
---
"I don't think you can run a double-blind experiment with an omniscient being as the subject." -- kozlo100
#24KikelingyglerPosted 6/26/2011 6:56:55 PM
ITT: final bahamut delivers