Do you think Creationism should be taught in school? If so, why? [Spirituality & Religion]

Such as?

I may be jumping the gun here, but i'm pretty sure you're not going to answer that question...

Insufficient causation.

@hippyjoe1955:

Meaning what exactly?

If you don't know then no amount of discussing it will help you. Your mind is made up. You were educated enough to teach you what to think but not educated enough to question what you have been taught.

@hippyjoe1955:

Ok...no reason to shut down the discussion before it has begun.
I was just asking what you meant by insufficient causation.
How am i suppose to question anything if you're unwilling to even explain your challenge to my knowledge?

Do you understand the words "insufficient causation"?

@hippyjoe1955:

Yes, but i don't know to what you're referring. Insufficient causation with regard to what?
Would you really rather spend all this effort being condescending rather than just speaking plainly what you mean?

Darwinian evolution is basically 'happenstance and circumstance' yet we see extremely fine tuned functionality in even the simplest life forms. That kind of fine tuning is not possible on a purely happenstance/circumstance basis.

How do you know it's not possible?

I'm a process design engineer by training and trade. That kind of function simply doesn't come about by random chance. The odds are far far far greater that we would find rocks in the shape of dinner plates than even the simplest life forms. Yet when we come across a buried dinner plate we instantly know that it is an artificial artifact because nature does not produce dinner plate shaped rocks.

@hippyjoe1955:

How do you know what the odds are of evolution through natural selection?

@UnparalleledMonster: Yes the odds are ZERO. You can't get from the Big Bang to humanity.

@hippyjoe1955: ALL life forms - simple or otherwise - are deeply flawed.

ALL life forms, including the one your god made (allegedly) in his own image, suffer extreme pain, in some cases for life.

Life forms are ALL subject to massive defects in the womb, some of those defects making it impossible for the individual being to survive at all, others reducing or destroying all quality of life.

About 1 in 3 diagnosed human pregnancies are so defective they can't survive the first few months of pregnancy, and they die (naturally, and without assistance.) This obviously doesn't include an unknown number that don't live long enough to cause symptoms and warrant a pregnancy test ... we're not really all [i]that[/i] fine-tuned, are we?!

IF your god [b][i]really[/i][/b] designed all that, what kind of sick psychotic lunatic is he/she/it?

But surely, those are exactly the kinds of defects that would be caused by evolutionary chance and happenstance ... so where was your argument again??🤤

Just stating my opinion here. I'm not going to let you draw me into a slanging match, and any of your arrogant belittling will be studiously ignored (IF I see it,) because I have things to do. Have a nice day!😇

You are assigning flaws on a false premise. You are assuming that flaw was not part of the original design. If I am a designer and I want the item I am designing to last 5 years then its demise at 5 years is not a flaw it is the design parameters I set for myself. In the mean time you still haven't explained the gap between the Big Bang and humanity.

@hippyjoe1955:

How do you know the odds? You're making a statistical argument. This requires that the probabilities be known.
So how do you know?

Well if you studied statistics you would know. Obviously you never studied or dealt in statistics. So please explain how the Big Bang happened and then how the perfect environment to support life happened then explain how life came to be.

@hippyjoe1955:


Hey man, evolution only seeks to explain the diversity of life on the planet.
Which it does from a variety of sources.

So let's just accept that the statistics make it implausible. Plausibility is an important aspect to a scientific theory but it is not everything. If something this implausible but still evident then the statistics aren't very relevant.

So how would you address the preponderance of evidence from a number of sources that indicates evolution (however unlikely) HAS taken place?

@hippyjoe1955: "Darwinian evolution is basically 'happenstance and circumstance'"

No it isn't.

What on Earth are you talking about?
Whatever it is, it isn't the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

Tell me, hippyjoe1955... what do you think the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection says about the development of life?

@hippyjoe1955: "...please explain how the Big Bang happened...."

What does that have to do with the Theory of Evolution by natural Selection?

It''s a completely different topic.
I have already explained that to you (https://similarworlds.com/story?fid=6146296&tid=588931&rid=6325630&name=I-Accept-the-Theory-of-Evolution), and you accepted that, and yet here you are repeating the same nonsense.

incidentally, you seem to have abandoned our discussion of the origin of life... why?

@hippyjoe1955: " You can't get from the Big Bang to humanity"

Wanna bet?
Let's try, and see how we go...

First we'll need to discuss the Big bang (it's a separate topic from evolution (as I have explained to you)... and has nothing to do with evolution.
Then we'll need to continue our discussion on abiogenesis... I really do hope that you haven't abandoned that discussion just when it was becoming interesting... because that too is a separate topic (as I have explained to you), and has nothing to do with evolution... except insofar as it forms part of our definition of life (you'll remember that we defined life as 'a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution'.

Or we could simply discuss the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, because that, too, is a completely separate topic.

What would you like to do? Completely your choice.

@newjaninev2: If you understood philosophy, which you obviously don't, you would know that the Big Bang and evolution are two sides to the same argument. Both as held in 'scientific' understanding mean the same thing. Materialism. IOW material and only material is responsible for all that is and all that ever will be. Material is entirely responsible for the physical universe and all that is in it. Material is responsible for life and all of its forms. Material is responsible for life forms becoming more and more and more complex. Thus when I say that materialism is insufficient causation you deflect into how we humans have been able to breed big dogs and little dogs and dogs the herd and dogs that hunt and dogs that guard and dogs that cuddle as evidence of evolution. However that simplistic twaddle is just that. Simplistic twaddle. It explains nothing. Implicit in the theory is the idea that life spontaneously arose from non living matter and that space and time sprang from singularity. All of which is insufficient causation.

@hippyjoe1955:

Hey joe. Care to make a response to my last post?
I was just asking that despite what you perceive as a huge statistical improbability, evolution does appear to have taken place. There's a lot of evidence for it.
What do you make of that evidence?
If you take issue with it, what specifically do you take issue with?

@UnparalleledMonster: You didn't provide any evidence. What you provided was mere conjecture. Learn the difference. I don't answer to conjecture. It is pointless.