Comments on: Texas Official: Call it a”Creationism Degree”

By: Diploma owner

Diploma owner — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:02:01 +0000

That’s bad. I do not think that the belief in God or ateism must affect on the quality of education.

By: Smarteritan

Smarteritan — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:39:32 +0000

Samaritan sets up the same trap as most creationists — the assertion that an inability to provide disproof is proof in itself. This is not science, it is a logic puzzle for debate in philosophy class.Science — the category into which evolutionary study falls, and creationism does not — is defined by an ability to observe and test. There is no educated debate that evolution occurs, it is a witnessed phenomenon. Observation of its effects over vast periods is made possible by the fossil record. Breeding experiments in flora and fauna are artificially-induced evolution. The much-touted phrase “theory of evolution” refers to HOW it happens, not IF it happens.Religion — the category into which creationism falls and evolution does not — is the philosophical treatise by which unanswerable, untestable questions are asked. While many scientific questions began as unanswerable matters of faith, many can now be understood by many of the processes since discovered, including evolution. Creationism establishes the hypothesis that God created everything more or less as it is today. There it stops. There is no means to observe this, since creationists dismiss the fossil record on many oft-repeated fallacies, all of which have been countered and disproven; though creationists ignore or dismiss the counters ad infinitum, inevitably leading back to the untestable premise that God is all-powerful and unknowable. There is no test for creationist hypothesis. Its only strength — the inability to be disproven — is its Achilles’ Heel: without a test for falsifiability, without corroborating observation independent of the hypothesis itself, there is no scientific thought to be explored, no experiment to be conducted. This precludes it from ever being considered genuine science.So no, Samaritan, there can be no test to disprove God. There is also no test to prove God. In the course of scientific understanding, an impossible being which can instantly and totally alter established laws of reality is irrelevant — mathematically expressed, infinity = 0 for the purposes of the equation. Otherwise, any law of science could instantly and inexplicably be altered, rendering all scientific study useless. Until that happens, God is a null set factor in trying to understand his 12+ billion-year-old creation.

By: S. Walker

S. Walker — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:51:10 +0000

Since a nincompoop is a ‘silly or foolish person’ (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nincompoop) I’d say there are lots of creationists who aren’t nincompoops.I’d argue that ,based on the available evidence, that those leading the movement are dishonest and are aware of the it (http://inconcinnus.blogspot.com/2008/01/lies-darwinism-and-intelligent-design.html).The folks that are following, they may be nincompoops, but many just can’t seem to get around all the lovely misconceptions/deceptions the Jonathan Wells, Bill Dembski, and Dr. Dino seem to have thrown at them. Since all those folks have such impressive resume’s and all believe in God, how can they be lying. On the other hand, those pesky scientists really seem to be a shady bunch. That whole global warming thing has got to be a hoax.

By: Caledonian

Caledonian — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:12:44 +0000

The problem is that there are many creationists who are not nincompoops.

No, there aren’t. At this point, I doubt there are any people fitting the description of ‘creationists’ who still lack access to the data indicating that their claim is wrong. So the ignorance is no longer a defense: the only reasons people are creationists is that they’re dishonest, stupid, or stupidly dishonest.

By: G Felis

G Felis — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:24:09 +0000

The problem is that there are many creationists who are not nincompoops. We Christians who are not nincompoops have an old-fashioned word to describe this type of creationist: we call them liars, usually for cash.

You get cash in return for calling creationists liars? And here I've been doing it gratis for all these years...;-)

By: Scott Hatfield, OM

Scott Hatfield, OM — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:26:41 +0000

The problem is that there are many creationists who are not nincompoops. We Christians who are not nincompoops have an old-fashioned word to describe this type of creationist: we call them liars, usually for cash.

By: Trase

Trase — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:02:26 +0000

This mean I can also has degree in Hollow Earth theory?:PSorry, but absurdity such as this can only be responded to in kind.And although I’m not a strict adherent to any one philosophers words, Rand included, I think her words apply here: “If devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking…the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind.”

By: harveykek

harveykek — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:21:18 +0000

G -so we allow THIS ONE and *only* this one of the major theories that govern all of science to be challenged, because some nutcakes really, truly believe in the book (written by people) that tells them the whole world was created in seven days about 6000 years ago.why not base our scientific theories on eric von daniken. or maybe isaac asmov – at least he was a real scientist.this is bullshit. no, these people must be rooted out and sent back to their sunday schools or madrassas or wherever, like the dover pa school board that lost in court and then got booted by the voters. screw ’em. they don’t deserve the time of day.

By: oddjob

oddjob — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:17:26 +0000

The program is open only to students who believe that God created the universe in six days and that those who deny Jesus Christ face eternal damnation, …. Adultery, homosexuality and fornication are banned.And they expect this to pass government muster…..Unbelievable (except that it’s happening in Texas, of course)……….

By: G

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:00:23 +0000

Evolution – that change in species has occured over time – is a fact. It’s the mechanisms for evolution (the “how”) that is theoretical. Scientific theory is just an explanation of facts. Darwin’s theory was incomplete in that genetics and mutations weren’t understood. That didn’t change the fact that evolution occurs. Even Newton’s “Law” of gravity was a theory too – that didn’t mean objects didn’t fall before or after him. And in fact, has been shown to be incomplete as well (Einstein improved on it with his general theory of relativity).