Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

reply to post by andy1033

Do not forget man is neearly capable of making life now by themselves, but oh no something could not have made all of creation, lol.

The reason we are so close to creating synthetic life is due to biological theories. It is due to our knowledge of evolution, genetics, and hypotheses such as abiogenesis. We are taking conditions that existed when life first emerged and recreating them in a lab. So, if we are able to produce life through these methods it only adds further support to the established theories and adds credence to abiogenesis. Just because we can create life artificially does not mean we were artificially created. And even if we are the product of a higher power, it did not occur the way creation in the Bible is depicted. It occurred through the same biological processes that are the foundation of evolution and abiogenesis.

How condescending it is to associate someone without religious belief as someone who is also empty. Compared to a narrow existence? Faith is not needed for happiness, and lack there of shouldnt make you feel sorry for anyone.

reply to post by InertiaZero


How condescending is it of you to associate someone with faith in Yahweh as insane? As compared to an empty existence. Atheism is not needed for clarity and rationalism, and lack of atheism shouldn't make you feel superior.

Better yet, how arrogant to assume your lack of belief is the only valid way to live?

This thread was NOT JUST about removing religious doctrine from scientific education. It was asking if creationists were insane. There is huge difference there. It was a request for my judgement on what the OP posted. Did you read it at all?

" Should creationism be considered a sign of insanity?" No more than the idea of evolution.

Conciousness creates vessels for itself to operate through, and these do evolve over millions of years.

Therefore it is my belief that both ideas exist.

Originally posted by jennybee35
What I don't understand is if you want to believe that there could be some "higher power" or whatever you want to call it, how is it possible you can't believe that life was created by that power? When I say created, I mean in any way: i.e sparked the first cell, planted the first bacteria, or even created some life form complete? There is no room in your view of things for that to have taken place? That leaves an awful narrow field of learning, doesn't it?

If the creationists simply tried to suggest some higher entity (be it a deity, or a extraterrestrial with advanced scientific ways) sparked off the initial cell replication, and kept it as a simple philosophical discussion while science is still out, I would have no problem with that. Speculation is speculation overall...so long as that is how its kept and understood by both parties.

me personally speculating...and again, keep in mind this is just my thoughts which I would immediately frame as such, is that the fused cells between our species and a ape is curious. That does make me think of genetic engineering..but I will not therefore start a church up and demand schools teach my speculation as an equal truth... Hell, I flat out believe in the ancient astronauts theory, but I also deem my belief as not even remotely close to a scientific absolute. Until undeniable proof of my belief is found and agreed upon by the majority of sciences, being peer reviewed, etc...then it simply has no room in a classroom...but rather, should be simply discussed in a coffee house informally as the interesting and compelling speculation it is.

Creationists skew the truth, and flat out lie. They then take their easily disproven speculation and demand it equal with scientific discovery.

Creationists are an abomination to understanding and seeking of the truth because of their willful spreading of lies to destroy verifiable understandings..that is destructive to the progression of our species.

Tell Yehweh I said hi..and to keep the sparkle up

reply to post by SaturnFX


Well, like I said before, religion in all it's forms have been used as a form of political and social control since it's inception. As soon as the first man realized that he could hold power if he used God's name as his backing, it was polluted. So, yeah, there is no way to combine the two teachings with the religious atmosphere what it is today. That's just a shame.

Yahweh says "Wussup? How come I never hear from you?"

reply to post by InertiaZero


I agree about voicing an opinion about something being crazy, however, I don't think one should be "declared insane" thus being placed in a mental hospital because of differing beliefs.

Originally posted by justagirl
reply to post by InertiaZero

 

I agree about voicing an opinion about something being crazy, however, I don't think one should be "declared insane" thus being placed in a mental hospital because of differing beliefs.

Even if, while voicing your belief, your knowingly covering up a fact?

Lying and teaching that lie really only falls into one of two catagories. either purposefully decieving others (willful ignorance), or an inability to deal with reality...which is insanity at its core

I do not see much gray area here.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Even if, while voicing your belief, your knowingly covering up a fact?

For clarity's sake, what fact are you talking about?

reply to post by SaturnFX


Should people who lie by omission also be committed?

That is to say if I don't tell fat people they are fat and disgust me, am I not being deceptive by withholding these truths from them and the world?


*Hey what about the Jews - Do you think the Jews with their zany beliefs should be rounded up again?

It sounds like you do...

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Even if, while voicing your belief, your knowingly covering up a fact?

For clarity's sake, what fact are you talking about?

The video at the OP shows these nuts talking about how measurements of time is taken to date a fossel, knowing full well the argument is absolutely false. They are teaching the kids a fully proveable lie. They were asked about that by the reporters and their response was "they can't teach everything together due to time limitations", so instead, they spent time talking about an absolute false method of dating the bones...

Its not even leaving out a critical part..its actually flat out lying to children to convince them that dating is made up. They even positioned themselves and the kids so they would not see the sign in the museum explaining how the dating process works.

They know what they are saying in that sense is a lie, they even make sure the kids repeat the lie. and hell, thats what they are showing on television. I used to be a catholic...went to catholic school...I know first hand what they try to teach kids in school when there isn't cameras around.

Total fear tactics...not just to believe, but also they try to scare you from even considering researching on your own that may lead to disproving what they teach (God should not be questioned...when you research something, are you doing it to question the bible, aka, the word of God...cause if you even crack open a book with that intention, your soo going to hell).

reply to post by jennybee35


The fact that creationism is not a valid scientific theory, yet many want it to be taught that way. There is no supporting evidence and the claim is not falsifiable in any way. Yet, time and again people claim it is a suitable alternative to evolution, which has mountains of peer reviewed evidence in its favor and is falsifiable (although it never has been). One is a religious belief and a matter of faith, while the other is a scientific theory and a matter of empirical evidence. To present them on equal footing conveys that either creationism has been subjected to the scientific rigor that evolution has been, or that evolution is nothing more than a matter of faith, both of which are false.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

That is to say if I don't tell fat people they are fat and disgust me, am I not being deceptive by withholding these truths from them and the world?

Are you trying to teach someone that a person is fat and disgusting? What is the point? and if it somehow meant something, if a person is overweight, then they are overweight. Not sure why it would be required for you to tell someone that though (unless you cared for them and they were risking their health)..but that is a complete strawman argument which has nothing to do with the topic...you might want to read the actual first post verses leap to conclusions.

*Hey what about the Jews - Do you think the Jews with their zany beliefs should be rounded up again?

In a word, Yes. rounded up and perhaps fined everytime they tried to teach something provably wrong as fact. Practicing a belief, no...but when they start stating something under the guise of education, then there needs to be standards
Same with christians, muslims, and any other major religion that teaches provable falsehoods as fact.

Speculation is great, and always encouraged...hell, the keystone of science is speculation and consideration...the problem is when speculation overrides current scientific understandings.

I like how you tried to use two emotional examples to counter the rationale thinking...and actually, that in itself shows the problem.
If you cant beat em with logic, dazzle them with bulls--t

reply to post by SaturnFX


Okay, i see. I have to admit that I didn't really do more than skim thru the vids. Their voices made me want to scream, so I cheated and just read your posts. I cannot imagine them thinking that's an okay thing to do. What happens when those same kids get old enough to research on theor own and discover that carbon dating is real?

Can you teach anything to your homeschooled children in the US, even not following the mandatory curriculum? My sister was homeschooled, but she still had to visit local state school and take tests regularly to ensure parents are really teaching her things in the curriculum and not abusing the privilege to indoctrinate her with lies. Because teaching your children unscientific personal beliefs during schooling instead of (not so much in addition to) scientific consensus and standard curriculum is nothing short of child abuse, and should be illegal.

As for believing in creationism being a sign of insanity, I dont think its that bad - indoctrination and ignorance it is, but insanity in its psychiatric definition requires more, lets not dilute the meaning. Altrough I believe many literal biblical creationists (especially those active creationist apologetics) would fulfill the definition of weaker insanity under closer medical inspection, there are surely many who would not, and are just ignorant and indoctrinated, or believe it just from tradition.

Originally posted by Maslo
Can you teach anything to your homeschooled children in the US, even not following the mandatory curriculum? My sister was homeschooled,

There are guidelines...yes, aptitude tests are given.

Of course, that doesn't stop mom and dad from mentioning jesus every other second, or attributing all knowledge to the bible..and of course mixing in there religion 101. half hour teaching science, then 2 hours right after teaching religion and why science is wrong, but what the state needs for you to put down on their silly tests.

here is a shining example of home schooled familys:

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

So the people who made dolly the sheep should be locked up as crazy when they proved fact.

...you mean the fact as predicted by genetics that you can duplicate an organism? It doesn't contradict anything established.

Evolution goons

WOOOOO! Name calling.

cannot stand the fact that there theory has no basis,

It has plenty of basis

and just imagine how far away we are today from creating life from nothing.

...no, we aren't going to ever create life from nothing. We'll create life from non-life, but not nothing.
And how would that disprove evolution?

Oh no creation cannot exist as evolution with no basis is fact(lol at these people)

Evolution is fact because of the millions of pieces of research and scholarship done on the subject, not because it has no basis.

This was quite an amusingly badly done troll though.

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by InertiaZero
Of course it's also fair to be able to voice your opinion about a subject if you think it is outright insane.

What like evolution?

1 line troll, very mature.

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Total ignorance is what people like richard dawkins want.

No, Richard Dawkins very much wants non-ignorance. He wants people to have a proper education on subjects like biology (something you lack).

Amazing the geezer is so clever he has never ever found out anything that is absolute top secret.

....um....since when was that the measure of cleverness? The guy is a brilliant biologist and zoologist, his contribution to those fields is invaluable. Hell, he came up with the concept of the 'meme', he created a word that is used in day-to-day language for plenty of people.

But you people jump when he says jump, as you think he is right just by calling peoples names.

...no, I don't admire his name calling at times. However, sometimes it is asked for. You, for instance, are ignorant and confrontational.

Arrogance keeps secrets,a nd this is exactly how evolution works, and its useless theory.

...what? There's absolutely nothing secret about evolution. It's a useful theory and is the cornerstone of modern biology. There's no arrogance here, only knowledge.

Imagine mankind is not far from creating life on its own, but heck creationism is not even allowed as these ignorant people who like dawkins has never discovered any truths are listened too.

...um...how would humanity creating life disprove evolution? Again, creationism is nonscientific. It is an unfalsifiable and unproven hypothesis that's part of an attempt to impose a very narrow worldview upon people.

Evolution, on the other hand, is well-supported science (but you'll never listen to that statement, so why am I even bothering?)

Now, to address the title of this thread.

No, they aren't insane. Well, not all of them. Sure, some of them like Kent Hovind, Ken Hamm, Dembski, William Lane Craig and many more do exhibit traits that are either indicators of psychosis or outright lies.

On the other hand, the majority of creationists are so due to their own ignorance. It's not because they're insane, they probably just don't know any better.

That's why we have to keep this discussion going. If we leave it alone these unfortunate, deceived individuals will remain deceived.

I fully believe that we should teach children ALL the theories that are out there, in full and impartial context - tell them what we think about evolution, and why we think it. Tell them what we think about creation, and why we think it. Tell them what we think about 'An Interview with a Vampire' and why we think it.

Teach them everything we know about everything we think, and let them decide.

Of course, there are two reasons why this doesn't work:

1) nobody is impartial.

2) children have parents who are not impartial and have their own ideas as to what their children could think.

3) We have a very limited time to get an almost unlimited amount of information across.

So we can't teach everything. However, evolution is based on study, study is associated with academia. Evolution, thus, is appropriate to a school (or any other teacher/student) setting.

Creation is based on the bible, which is a very elderly book written by men (or women, or aliens), quite some time ago. Taking the events depicted on the bible to be true is based entirely on faith, faith is not something learned - and not, therefore, if any parents who would try and breastfeed their children on faith, something that can be taugh - but something that must be found for oneself.

I would thus consider creationist views and their context less fundamental to a childhood education than evolution and its context.

PS - to those who disagree and plan to teach faith to their children from an early age: Consider God and Santa Claus. Neither are provable, but many parents will teach both to their children from an early age. Children trust their parents, and faith in said parents is carried over into apparent faith in both (a) God and Santa Claus. Eventually (cover your eyes if you're under 10 years of age) children learn that Santa is actually one of their parents eating the cookies, drinking the brandy and stuffing the stocking. When this happens, that same child realises that their faith in their parents was misplaced, and loses all faith in Santa and there is no logical reason for the child to retain faith in another story their parents told them, of God, except that the cost of testing the Santa habit (=no stocking) is considerably less than the stated cost of breaking the God habit (=eternal agony).

Which is a dirty trick on the parts of a thousand generations of parents.

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Okay, i see. I have to admit that I didn't really do more than skim thru the vids. Their voices made me want to scream, so I cheated and just read your posts. I cannot imagine them thinking that's an okay thing to do. What happens when those same kids get old enough to research on theor own and discover that carbon dating is real?

Hopefully they will go on to be the next generation of biologists, anthropologists, paleontologists and other sciences to show creationism as the junk science it is.

The answer to your question is nobody really knows. Theory and speculation aside, we don't know definitely either way. I think our solar system mimics the way protons and neutrons make up a nucleus. Maybe we are just small players in a bigger picture. Infinity and beyond