UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

[xVaLoRx]

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

but how can we be sure that reuben_tate is on the other end of the skype chat and not the flying spaghetti monster????

[Nullifidian]

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

That would've been an excellent question if you incorporated invisible dragons instead of the flying spaghetti monster.

[xVaLoRx]

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

yeah man u already told me on skype


or maybe an invisible dragon told me... ??? the world may never know

[FoJaR]

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

college wards are a blast though.

nope.

[korny]

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

it really does seem like your parents made it terrible for you. it doesn't help when it's three hours long too.

3 hours long, church lessons that start at 5 50 am mon-fir before school, a widely known unbearable home teaching companion, insufferable bishop, more church on Wednesday nights, mandatory boy scout attendance, temple trips lasting entire Saturdays, pioneer treks in 1800 clothing in 100 degree weather for reenactment purposes etc.

All forced and threatened with doggy door installation in my bedroom being fed breakfast, lunch and dinner through it until there was full compliance. Wasn't a big fan

[Izzy]

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

3 hours long, church lessons that start at 5 50 am mon-fir before school, a widely known unbearable home teaching companion, insufferable bishop, more church on Wednesday nights, mandatory boy scout attendance, temple trips lasting entire Saturdays, pioneer treks in 1800 clothing in 100 degree weather for reenactment purposes etc.

All forced and threatened with doggy door installation in my bedroom being fed breakfast, lunch and dinner through it until there was full compliance. Wasn't a big fan

Wow, I'd probably just kill myself and I'm not saying that lightly as a joke. I'd probably really consider it.

I'd try running away first though.

[adlp]

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

3 hours long, church lessons that start at 5 50 am mon-fir before school, a widely known unbearable home teaching companion, insufferable bishop, more church on Wednesday nights, mandatory boy scout attendance, temple trips lasting entire Saturdays, pioneer treks in 1800 clothing in 100 degree weather for reenactment purposes etc.

All forced and threatened with doggy door installation in my bedroom being fed breakfast, lunch and dinner through it until there was full compliance. Wasn't a big fan

holy shit dude thats unreal. there shouldve been an emphasis on agency but i guess they went the tighter the grip the more star systems slip through your fingers route. id probably be in the same boat as you

[adlp]

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

nope.

i hear byu wards are mostly a meat market is that accurate

[FoJaR]

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

byu single and married wards are both terrible

[stargroup100]

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

You know what the problem is here? Smart people who can't seem to see eye-to-eye.

On one end you have someone who believes what he believes is obvious, and who thinks that it's justified to insult a stupid person as being stupid because he is by definition stupid.

On the other hand, you have someone smart who is looking at it from a slightly different perspective and trying to explain an entirely different point, and who thinks that someone stupid insulting his intelligence is too stupid to understand his point and therefore ignores him.

Clearly we're not getting anywhere. I understand that the "rational community" and academia generally agree that creationism is a load of crap (and I agree). What makes creationism harmful is when it's being used to propagate false information, promote arbitrary principle and standards, and suppress scientific growth. Reuben's point does not pertain to any of this, and in a sense there are "naturalistic" qualities to his arguments, despite the mention of a higher deity.

My dad actually has what could be argued as a creationism belief. He sees God as the "unknown." He doesn't believe in God the way other people do. When I asked to describe the God he believes in, he says he can't, because that's pretty much the point. Humans are able to create inventions and various things that could create systems that have certain degrees of complexity and can be analyzed and explored (computation, economics, etc), but all of these systems exist within a natural world which has systems of its own (chemistry, biology, physics, etc). He's simply arguing that even though he accepts that complex objects can arise from simple rules and develop naturally, they still arise from these rules and systems, which are attributed to this God. He doesn't think this God necessarily (and probably doesn't) has human-like traits, such as morals, but is simply a force outside of the universe that gave some sort of "meaning" to the systems within ours. Obviously he acknowledges there is no evidence for his belief, and does not impose this idea or treat it as fact, and certainly does not use it to influence his perception on real world issues and reality. He's incredibly smart and wise, and yet this is arguably a form of creationism.

This could be what reuben was trying to explain, that there exist rational interpretations of a creationism explanation of the universe. We are looking at creationism as being unfalsifiable and therefore insufficient as justification for any real world result, but what he's talking about is more idealistic. Some of you here like Spitfire don't see this and discredit and insult him, which is wrong in principle, but reuben isn't understanding that the FSM argument is actually addressing a lot of things he's talking about, and in the context of science education this is almost irrelevant anyways, which is sort of wrong because it could be just a consequence of ignorance.

This is quite a nice example of why it's so hard for smart people of differing views to get along, and why it's difficult to even distinguish sometimes between smart and not-so-smart people and their views. I don't think anyone that has passionately discussed the issue in this thread is stupid, but we really need to work on understanding each other better.