Consequences of Creationism : AFB (+ Mike Sweeney)

Consequences of Creationism : Rik Elswit and Matthew Caine · Bob Trent · Marcelus Aurelius · AFB (+ Mike Sweeney) · Peter Tatford · Michael David Griffiths · Jo Wharrier · Paulo Oliveira · The Feasibilian Project

Q

What is the possible impact of the creationism theory to the world?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-possible-impact-of-the-creationism-theory-to-the-world/answer/AFB-12

AFB

Former Computer System Design (1963–2006)

10.VII.2022

That delusional thinking turns out to be a contagious virus and catching it destroys a person's capacity to think.

Creationism is not a theory. It's just the crap in the Bible. No one has formed an hypothesis, devised experiments to validate the hypothesis, determined the expected results of the experiments, done the experiments and determined if they match anticipated results and observations in the real world. NOT ONE.

It is pseudoscience based on belief in supernatural magical beings. The opposite of science. It's impact would set back science hundreds of years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10.VII.2022

“No one”

Have you heard of CMI?

AFB

10.VII.2022

Articles are opinion

Not scientific investigations

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.VII.2022

And if I turned the tables and tossed down all the Evolution believing researchers with exactly the same assessment?

Mike Sweeney

15.VII.2022

You and he are not deciding the point for the world. The argument has played out, multiple times, in multiple players. It has been hashed out in books, it has been hashed out in court.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

15.VII.2022

And may continue to be hashed out some more, up to Harmageddon even!

As to the court decision Kitzmiller vs Dover, the judge was not impartial, he was a very modernist type of Lutheran.

Mike Sweeney

15.VII.2022

For the point above, doesn’t matter which way the case went; the point was that if a courtroom full of intelligent motivated people with prepared material and visual aids were still working on it days later, nothing you, I, or anyone else writes in a short forum post is going to decide the issue!

In any case, Dover (no more than Scopes) wasn’t actually arguing evolution. They set out to determine of “Intelligent Design” was intended as an end-run around existing constitutional protections and…boy howdy was it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

17.VII.2022

Considering the nature of these “constitutional protections” I think they have a clear fake basis in the “lemon principle” which both is non-originalist (yes, you had bad supreme court judges at a certain time) and misapplied to creationism, as it is to intelligent design.

And the US has not seen any lemon principle applied to the Evolution belief or its promotion in science classes …

We have been discussing for days, I answered AFB on July 11 …

But thanks for the admission that neither was “actually discussing evolution” … this means these court cases are largely less than totally relevant to our discussion.