Consequences of Creationism : The Feasibilian Project

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

From his profile:
Critical thinker and lifelong learner of psychology
CPD-QMS Certified in Problem Solving & Critical Thinking, CPD (Continuing Professional Development) Graduated 2021
Corporate Development and Education Professional, 1998–present

For one, I thought problem solving a critical thinking were basic skills, useful in any subject, but not university subjects in themselves. And for another, he started his carreere in 1998. Divide that number by three .... you'll be surprised if you don't already know.

But here is his answer, my comment, perhaps some more by the time this is published:

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/The-Feasibilian-Project

The Feasibilian Project

Critical thinker and lifelong learner of psychology

18.VII.2022

It’s stupid and dangerous. Religious fanatics want to push their agenda by influencing legislation, and stop schools from teaching actual science. Creationism is aka “intelligent design”. It is not science, it is religious doctrine, and should never taught in schools. It is a ridiculous religious fairytale from brain-damaged and mentally ill fundamentalist Christians. It has no place in society and no relevance to reality whatsoever.

I answered twice

A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18.VII.2022

Have I taken it that your basic position is that fundamentalist Christians are mentally ill, should be second class citizens, not even influence legislation and if possible be eliminated?

Because some people of your (approximate) mindset have given me that impression by the way they treated me … I happen to be a Fundamentalist Roman Catholic, btw.

The Feasibilian Project

18.VII.2022

Regardless of fundamentalist Roman Catholic or any fundamentalist Christian denominational belief, creationism should not be taught in schools because it is completely wrong and dies not have one shred of truth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18.VII.2022

According to your very plausible belief system, neither does Roman Catholicism.

How many other areas than the schooling of my children would you want to marginalise me from?

Or are you fine with homeschooling at least?

The Feasibilian Project

19.VII.2022

I don't have a belief system. Atheism means no belief in any gods, and that happens to include creationism, because it's full of magical and fallacious thinking involving gods. Since when is teaching facts of evolution in schools all about you and your feelings of marginalization? It's about children getting an education with correct factual information because there's mountains of overwhelming evidence that evolution by natural selection is true. Creationism simply is not. I don't care how you dress it up to seem plausible when it absolutely isn't. Why would you not want children to learn about evolutionary biology when all evidence points in that direction? Homeschooling is fine as long as children are learning many different disciplines of science, equivalent to what public schools teach, but that's obviously not my decision. I just know I would give my child every advantage with a solid education in science and critical thinking, to ensure they are able to make well nformed decisions in life about reality. There's no rational reason why I'd suggest that creationism is even close to the same level as any science discipline.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

19.VII.2022

Evolution is your belief system, now no longer just “very plausibly” but on your own words.

“Since when is teaching facts of evolution in schools all about you and your feelings of marginalization?”

I think your proposal involved more than just evolution being taught, right? It involves, what I suffered, evolution being taught in science class, creationism being taught in no class, any creationist intervention from a pupil being hushed down because the science teacher was so hurried to answer the next question.

I find it fairly obvious that school is not meant to quasi bully some students, or to discreetly encourage more loyal students to actually bully them.

“It's about children getting an education with correct factual information”

What children should get is their PARENTS’ responsibility, not the state’s. This means, for each child, it is his parents who decide at least roughly what they would consider correct factual and what they would consider instead poisonously ideological information.

“because there's mountains of overwhelming evidence that evolution by natural selection is true.”

Oh, these mountains of evidence simply do not concern micribes to man, they concern things like wolves and dogs - not denied by Creationists.

“I don't care how you dress it up to seem plausible when it absolutely isn't.”

Why should what all schools teach be about what your care or don’t care?

I’ll end here for now!

The Feasibilian Project

19.VII.2022

You're wrong. Evolution is NOT a belief system. It's a fact, and it's backed up by over 150 years of solid science. It is plausible reliable repeatable tangible physical testable observable falsifiable and predictable scientific evidence. Creationism should be hushed because there many more things to learn about science, and we can't afford to waste anymore time on the exact opposite. I have never encouraged bullying for any reason. I encourage kids to focus on asking questions relevant to science. If anyone wants to know what Creationism is, it should be viewed in the context of fictional subject only. If you think that's bullying, then it says much more about you and your insecurity. You labeling evolution as “poisonously ideological information” is just ridiculous. Kids can make their own decisions at the age of consent, around 13–14. They don't need any religious indoctrination from a young age. Religious claims that you expose them to before age 13 is what you may BELIEVE, but they are still just claims, and you have no basis for calling it truth. No one should influence impressionable young children with religious concepts that are clearly loaded with cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and logical fallacies. “Why should what all schools teach be about what you care or don't care?” Because I MAY BE INTERACTING WITH ANY OF THESE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD AS ADULTS WHEN THEY GROW UP, and I want to interact with intelligent well-informed well-adjusted people capable of critical thinking skills, not people dependent on notions of some invisible questionable definition of a deity who just created stuff because a bible says so. There is no evidence of Creationism and there never was. I'm ending here now as well. Good day to you sir.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.VII.2022

"Evolution is NOT a belief system."

Say you.

"It's a fact, and it's backed up by over 150 years of solid science. It is plausible reliable repeatable tangible physical testable observable falsifiable and predictable scientific evidence."

You believe that, hence I said belief system.

"Creationism should be hushed because there many more things to learn about science, and we can't afford to waste anymore time on the exact opposite."

Ooops .... that's so many bloopers!

"Creationism should be hushed"

Doesn't follow, even if Evolution from microbes to man were a fact.

"because there many more things to learn about science,"

If Evolution were a fact, one of them would perhaps be to argue, not hush, against the supposed error of Creationism ...

"and we can't afford to waste anymore time on the exact opposite."

Who's we here? If it means you and your friends around the coffee table, fine, don't waste your time on it, then! But let those who are inclined to do so, do so.

If it means all of mankind, this involves three bloopers : 1) your erecting yourself as spokesman for it; 2) your hurrying mankind; 3) your tying mankind to science as if it were a holy grail, the goal of every human soul or family or other society.

"I have never encouraged bullying for any reason."

Consciously or directly. Neither had that science teacher, as far as I know. I can only say that on that occasion, he did ridicule me before some of those who bullied me, and therefore subrepticiously actually also encourage them.

When he was around, he certainly discouraged bullying, but he could not be around 24/24 on that school, he was a teacher, I was on a boarding home. When he did not watch the results, they came.

"I encourage kids to focus on asking questions relevant to science."

Are you a teacher?

Second, why teach science as the over and all of all human focus, not as one subject among many?

"If anyone wants to know what Creationism is, it should be viewed in the context of fictional subject only."

That would be a fairly vile misrepresentation of Creation scientists, for one.

"If you think that's bullying, then it says much more about you and your insecurity."

What the teacher did was interrupt when I considered my objection non-answered and quickly pass on to the next. It was a type of bullying, and if you do that to a creationist student, you are very briefly bullying him.

However, if you analyse what I said, he was above all subreptitiously encouraging others to bully me, not doing so himself. Perhaps uncounsciously. You see, the rest of the class was either neutral between evolution and creation (some girls were more spiritualist), or on his side. He was confirming his own to consider my side as an irrational because "unscientific" approach.

And when persons of authority are encouraging a gang of boys (with some girl hangalongs) to consider one person or his belief system not just wrong but irrational, then they will allow the persons of authority to underline it their way, when they are around, but when they are away, they will underline it their own way. And that own way is called bullying. Being caught at age 15 (as I was back then) with a gang of boys despising my belief system and the persons of authority doing so as well, that was simply being caught in a bullying trap. I don't see why it would paint me as insecure now to speak up about what happened then .... but if you want to hush Creationism down, it pays for you to pretend so.

"You labeling evolution as 'poisonously ideological information' is just ridiculous."

My exact words were: "it is his parents who decide at least roughly what they would consider correct factual and what they would consider instead poisonously ideological information."

Whether you find the label ridiculous or not, you have not shown an ounce of respect for the PARENTS to make the decision.

"Kids can make their own decisions at the age of consent, around 13–14. They don't need any religious indoctrination from a young age."

My teaching the children what I think basic correct facts is precisely what you call my giving them "religious indoctrination" ... why should your assessment override mine when it comes to my children?

"Religious claims that you expose them to before age 13 is what you may BELIEVE, but they are still just claims, and you have no basis for calling it truth."

You haven't so far called out one single of them and asked what my basis is. You have, based on your idiosyncratic cultural biasses, presumed they don't have any or I don't have any for them.

"No one should influence impressionable young children with religious concepts that are clearly loaded with cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and logical fallacies."

Sounds like you should be put out of the way of impressionable young children because of your religious concept of Almighty Science and the cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias and logical fallacies you have so far shown to Creationists. Even Evolutionist children should learn their religion from more balanced pious Evolutionists than you are.

But if you were saying "religious concepts" as meaning specifically things like Christianity, well, you are a Soviet shill.

"Because I MAY BE INTERACTING WITH ANY OF THESE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD AS ADULTS WHEN THEY GROW UP, and I want to interact with intelligent well-informed well-adjusted people capable of critical thinking skills, not people dependent on notions of some invisible questionable definition of a deity who just created stuff because a bible says so."

Oh, so you want to control what people are around in order to control what people you interact with? Just walking away isn't enough for you, you could block me for that purpose, no, you want to control what kind of people grow up at all? A total demonisation of Creationists, and as a follow up some kind of extinction warrant for us, that's "not bullying" to you? I'll tell you what. It is the kind of things Canada did to First Nations in British Columbia and Alberta and on Residential Schools up to 1990's, the kind of thing Hitler did to Jews, Gipsies, barring the specifics of the camps during the war.

This Creationist who as an adult is interacting with you would at least have been lots happier if he had been spared an all-Evolution school environment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.VII.2022

Btw, “I’ll end here for now” was not about ending the dialogue, it was about the single post, not having answered each of your points.

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18.VII.2022

“it is religious doctrine, and should never taught in schools.”

Have I taken it, your position is, all schools should be secular and teach no religious doctrine?

In Germany and Austria, state run schools have been teaching religious doctrine and still do.

My Lutheran / Salvation Army mother had to chose between Catholic and Calvinist religious studies, and she chose (thank God) the Catholic one, when I was in Austria.

Vienna had too few Lutherans, and lots of the other Salvation Army there were Calvinist or Zwinglian (from Switzerland) which she was not.

But the basic rule is, your parents chose Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Jewish, by now also I think Muslim (certainly in Germany) religious studies and the school provides for each (apart from cases where low numbers make that infeasible).

So, Austria is not your ideal, do you prefer the Soviet Union?

Like you, in principle (I’m not sure how far you go in practise), from the 70’s, it used psychiatry to “deal with” Fundamentalist Christians, who, obviously, were not fitting the secularist mold.

The Feasibilian Project

18.VII.2022

Yes, all schools should teach scientific facts and not religious doctrine. There is a massive amount of religious doctrine that is just not true and should never be taught as fact in schools.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

18.VII.2022

Like Evolution, featuring among others Abiogenesis and Gradual Humanisation?

Or do you limit it to religions claiming divine revelation?

If so, are you fine with Buddhist philosophy claiming illumination of the Buddha being taught as fact?

Now, to be serious, we live in a world where people disagree on things. People disagree on what the facts are, among other things. A fundamentalist Catholic wouldn’t want the sentence “Adam is a myth” taught as fact, an Evolution believer wouldn’t want the sentence “Darwin was wrong about all except micro-evolution” taught as a fact.

How about allowing schools to chose affiliation and parents chose school accordingly?

Or how about having science classes confessionalised along the Austrian and German model of tolerance, with Evolutionist classes of science and with Creationist classes of science and then parents chose?

Or do you believe that your own preferences should be imposed on everyone else as much as your power basis allows and hope this will always prevail against creationism?

The Feasibilian Project

19.VII.2022

Yes, like abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection because that's where the evidence leads. There is no rational reason why divine revelation (as written in Christian doctrine, I'm assuming) should ever be taught as truth in an academic setting. No, Buddhist principles qualify as religious belief and also has no place in academic settings. Illumination claims are just that…claims. Not truth. I don't care what Germany and Austria do with their education systems. There's no way creationism is an academic discipline and doesn't belong in school curriculum. Anyone can tell their children anything outside of school obviously. But it doesn't make it a fact. These aren't my preferences. Evolution is based on observable demonstrable reliable repeatable tangible falsifiable predictable testable convincing evidence. Creationism simply is not. Why would you not want to follow the evidence rather than just believe Catholic doctrine because it's an “option”. Stories of unicorns, fairies, and leprechauns are also options, but you don't see anyone teaching those as academic disciplines.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

20.VII.2022

You don’t find that respecting parents and their children is a good start for a bully free school environment?