Louisiana schools: Loch Ness Monster proves creationism is real

[John Dibble]

"What is moral and just in their eyes about this?"  It's the idea that if God created the world not too long ago, then there is a moral purpose to it, and it gives rhyme and reason to the suffering of the world if you can say it's because of human sin rather than antecedent to it. Promoting a particular moral view of the universe is what all this is about.  It makes sense to disagree, but why do you find it so threatening?

The view that the world is a mere 6000 to 10000 years old is contradicted by mountains of scientific evidence while being supported by none. Teaching this notion to kids as fact is damaging in light of that. They have to be taught that science is wrong, and this gives them a distrust of science and pushes them away from pursuing a future career in science. Considering that we as both a nation and a species as a whole need people in science to advance further, so this is not a good thing at all.

[John Dibble]

"What is moral and just in their eyes about this?"  It's the idea that if God created the world not too long ago, then there is a moral purpose to it, and it gives rhyme and reason to the suffering of the world if you can say it's because of human sin rather than antecedent to it. Promoting a particular moral view of the universe is what all this is about.  It makes sense to disagree, but why do you find it so threatening?

The view that the world is a mere 6000 to 10000 years old is contradicted by mountains of scientific evidence while being supported by none. Teaching this notion to kids as fact is damaging in light of that. They have to be taught that science is wrong, and this gives them a distrust of science and pushes them away from pursuing a future career in science. Considering that we as both a nation and a species as a whole need people in science to advance further, so this is not a good thing at all.

What do you base this on?  The Creation Science people are trying to say that their understanding of science is correct, while the evolutionists are wrong because they are ignoring the evidence that supports creation. That's very different from being opposed to science in the abstract.

Creation "Science" is nothing of the sort. Instead of looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion, they look at the Bible and either twist the evidence to meet what it says or reject that evidence outright. It's an absolute standard that they can't allow to be contradicted. But that's not how science works - if new evidence comes along that contradicts the current scientific understanding and said evidence survives the rigors of peer review, the scientific understanding is adjusted. But the creationists just can't do that, which is why they reject evolution, the fossil record, geology, radiometric dating, comparative anatomy, astrophysics, etc.

Essentially their entire deal is to reject real science and make a bunch of stuff up.

Excellent example in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xUiuZvUuw

[John Dibble]

All that stuff about them not being willing to change their views according to contradictory evidence - they say the same thing about evolutionists.

Flat-earthers also say the same thing about people who practice modern geography, but I don't see you defending their camp. Just because two groups disagree with one another doesn't mean the ideas of both groups should be treated equally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except they don't do their homework, or when they do they reject the findings. They do not follow the scientific process. They reject it because it gives results that contradict their faith. The entirety of their methodology is anti-science.

[John Dibble]

Creationism is no more or less valid than alchemy. Might as well teach that to kids too.

You know, those homeopaths argue with people who insist upon using evidence to determine whether a kind of medicine is effective or not, so we should teach that in med school. We'll end up like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

[John Dibble]

which scientific process?  A purely Baconian approach doesn't allow for Darwin either, but maybe you have something else in mind.

They don't follow any kind scientific process. They have a conclusion before doing any kind of science at all and reject or twist anything and everything that doesn't fit that conclusion. That is not science in any sense of the word.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm interested in facts and whether the methods that are used to attain them are reliable. But if you really think that the creationists have a legitimate scientific case then feel free to enlighten us on the scientific methodologies of those people who apparently think the Loch Ness Monster is evidence for dinosaurs living together with humans.

[John Dibble]

Has anyone ever met a young-Earth creationist? I don't believe they really exist, but then again, I don't believe the South really exists either.

I have - a rather ballsy one too. He actually came to an atheist meetup by himself. He was pretty nice actually, which probably had to do with him coming to expose himself to people other than his church group rather than to proselytize.