I don't have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. Teach creationism in school, fine, but DON'T teach it in a science classroom. Science = the study of repeatable, observable, natural phenomena. Accepting a supernatural explanation is a cop-out. It's faith, NOT science.

Religious nuts: please stop emailing me about that. No I can't "repeat" evolution for you, so stop asking. But if you doubt the science that allows us to guess the age of the earth, then please stop using your computer, cell phones, and TV. The same methods of science that brought you those are the same methods we use for these evil evolution theories. Science is NOT truth, it's the search for truth, fact.

Still batting 1000, nothing but fallacy and non-sequitur so far. What's left?

And sometimes the debate fails to even show up in even one sentence and is crowded out by nonsense, and so upon reading it, leaving one only a single recourse:

Those who wish to believe eveloution believes so on someone's elses authority and power.



Who's authority? What power? ....how about Darwinism and his followersI think thou dost project too much. The authority is called "Critical Thinking, the power is called "Reason". Authority and power are the men which gives you their permission to carry on with their thoughts and their theories.



Our Concept of Critical Thinking

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem

Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make,or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.


A Definition

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking-about any subject, content,or problem-in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.


To Analyze Thinking:
Identify its purpose, question, information, conclusion(s),assumptions,implications, main concept(s), and point of view.


To Assess Thinking:

Check it for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth,significance, logic, and fairness.

The Result

A well-cultivated critical thinker:

* Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
* Gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively;
* Comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
* Thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
* Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.


The Etymology and Dictionary Definition of "Critical Thinking"

The concept of critical thinking we adhere to reflects a concept embedded not only in a core body of research over the last 30 to 50 years but also derived from roots in ancient Greek. The word 'critical' derives etymologically from two Greek roots: "kriticos" (meaning discerning judgment) and "kriterion" (meaning standards). Etymologically, then, the word implies the development of "discerning judgment based on standards."

In Webster's New World Dictionary, the relevant entry reads "characterized by careful analysis and judgment" and is followed by the gloss: "critical,in its strictest sense, implies an attempt at objective judgment so as to determine both merits and faults." Applied to thinking, then, we might provisionally define critical thinking as thinking that explicitly aims at well-founded judgment and hence utilizes appropriate evaluative standards in the attempt to determine the true worth, merit, or value of something.

The tradition of research into critical thinking reflects the common perception that human thinking left to itself often gravitates toward prejudice, over-generalization, common fallacies, self-deception, rigidity,and narrowness.

The critical thinking tradition seeks ways of understanding the mind and then training the intellect so that such "errors", "blunders",and "distortions" of thought are minimized. It assumes that the capacity of humans for good reasoning can be nurtured and developed by an educational process aimed directly at that end.

The history of critical thinking documents the development of this insight in a variety of subject matter domains and in a variety of social situation. Each major dimension of critical thinking has been carved out in intellectual debate and dispute through 2400 years of intellectual history.

That history allows us to distinguish two contradictory intellectual tendencies: a tendency on the part of the large majority to uncritically accept whatever was presently believed as more or less eternal truth and a conflicting tendency on the part of a small minority those who thought critically to systematically question what was commonly accepted (and seek, as a result, to establish sounder, more reflective criteria and standards for judging what it does and does not make sense to accept as true).

Our basic concept of critical thinking is, at root, simple. We could define it as the art of taking charge of your own mind. Its value is also at root simple: if we can take charge of our own minds, we can take charge of our lives; we can improve them, bringing them under our self command and direction. Of course, this requires that we learn self-discipline and the art of self-examination. This involves becoming interested in how our minds work, how we can monitor, fine tune, and modify their operations for the better. It involves getting into the habit of reflectively examining our impulsive and accustomed ways of thinking and acting in every dimension of our lives.

All that we do, we do on the basis of some motivations or reasons. But we rarely examine our motivations to see if they make sense. We rarely scrutinize our reasons critically to see if they are rationally justified. As consumers we sometimes buy things impulsively and uncritically, without stopping to determine whether we really need what we are inclined to buy or whether we can afford it or whether it's good for our health or whether the price is competitive. As parents we often respond to our children impulsively and uncritically, without stopping to determine whether our actions are consistent with how we want to act as parents or whether we are contributing to their self esteem or whether we are discouraging them from thinking or from taking responsibility for their own behavior.

As citizens, too often we vote impulsively and uncritically, without taking the time to familiarize ourselves with the relevant issues and positions, without thinking about the long-run implications of what is being proposed, without paying attention to how politicians manipulate us by flattery or vague and empty promises. As friends, too often we become the victims of our own infantile needs, "getting involved" with people who bring out the worst in us or who stimulate us to act in ways that we have been trying to change. As husbands or wives, too often we think only of our own desires and points of view, uncritically ignoring the needs and perspectives of our mates, assuming that what we want and what we think is clearly justified and true, and that when they disagree with us they are being unreasonable and unfair.

As patients, too often we allow ourselves to become passive and uncritical in our health care, not establishing good habits of eating and exercise, not questioning what our doctor says, not designing or following good plans for our own wellness. As teachers, too often we allow ourselves to uncritically teach as we have been taught, giving assignments that students can mindlessly do, inadvertently discouraging their initiative and independence, missing opportunities to cultivate their self-discipline and thoughtfulness.

It is quite possible, and unfortunately quite "natural", to live an unexamined life, to live in a more or less automated, uncritical way. It is possible to live, in other words, without really taking charge of the persons we are becoming, without developing, or acting upon, the skills and insights we are capable of. However, if we allow ourselves to become unreflective persons, or rather, to the extent that we do, we are likely to do injury to ourselves and others, and to miss many opportunities to make our own lives, and the lives of others, fuller, happier, and more productive.

On this view, as you can see, critical thinking is an eminently practical goal and value. It is focused on an ancient Greek ideal of "living an examined life". It is based on the skills, the insights, and the values essential to that end. It is a way of going about living and learning that empowers us and our students in quite practical ways. When taken seriously, it can transform every dimension of school life: how we formulate and promulgate rules, how we relate to our students, how we encourage them to relate to each other, how we cultivate their reading, writing, speaking, and listening, what we model for them in and outside the classroom, and how we do each of these things.

Of course, we are likely to make critical thinking a basic value in school only insofar as we make it a basic value in our lives. Therefore, to become adept at teaching so as to foster critical thinking, we must become committed to thinking critically and reflectively about our own lives and the lives of those around us. We must become active, daily, practitioners of critical thought. We must regularly model for our students what it is to reflectively examine, critically assess, and effectively improve the way we live.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/ourConceptCT.shtml

I am also please to accept gifts for our Lord God, if they are giving with sincerity and honesty: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp., i accept in His Name.




The sins of both at least at frails end and righteousness evolutions who use words to overlook us and uses prewriten no tolerance instruction books to slap the opposing debaters a slap in their face, your ignorant, stupid, you have no intelligence, etc.

Take for instance, ID theory / Creationism, and the want for that to be taught in schools. Those two ideas are suggested by their proponents to be taught in the science cirriculum. Well in making that argument and suggestions those two ideas subject themselves to the standards that any idea / theory would if it was to be taught in a science cirriculum. You cannot on one hand say "teach my thoughts" in a science environment, and on the other say "don't critisize my thoughts with your science jargon".

If you are going to debate the merits of God / Creationism surely it cannot be too much to ask you to use logical reasoning and avoid fallacious arguments.

If you are going to debate the merits of God / Creationism surely it cannot be too much to ask you to use logical reasoning and avoid fallacious arguments.

Charlie

I cut and pasted this from your profile:

"I call my replies Super Charged Power Thoughts (SCPT). all my SCPT's are positive and inspirational. A few to many may have difficulty understanding my thoughts only because their opinions differ or their will power is programmed to block concepts like SCPT while they themselves have a basic understanding of SCPT's words."

You also state that:
"The sins of both at least at frails end and righteousness evolutions who use words to overlook us and uses prewriten no tolerance instruction books to slap the opposing debaters a slap in their face, your ignorant, stupid, you have no intelligence, etc."[/QUOTE] i believe this set of words are in answer to the website mentioned by latetm. In referance to my SCPT's they are forwarded with the words Super Charged Power Thoughts. These words have not approached me to be written within this topic.

My interpreation of the words from that web site, I am toning it down for the Christrians who are mainly humble and doing Gods work and deeds and in turn calling the evolutionist the words they use towards Christians. Christians begin called such names as ignorant and not intellegant, I haven't seen a Christian who fits those words while in a hospital or places of need, nursing homes, dealing with the elderely etc. Not plants, not organism, but real life, real people today.

Your final request to use logical reasoning and avoid fallacious arguments. Never will happen. Faith is positive and one can go crazy thinking in logical reasoning it will will bring them to higher levels. Those already know that it is their faith and beliefs that will bring their families together, help heal them and bring them success. I can show and pick out those very successful people in business who first had an idea and put every bit of faith they mustered into becoming the successful person they are today. I can show those who took the educational purists routes who have become successful but are more aggorant than those with faith. I dont think faith, a simple belief can be argued under those terms.

Dont mess with God's dirt unless you are ready to take full reponsibilities for His work.

No offense, but search out for information in a person's profile and try to use it to discredit someone , is in poor taste in my opinion.

Evolution happens when a mutation, that normally would be a hinderance, is in fact an improvement to survival due to some environmental change. Usually there is some cataclysm that makes ordinary traits of a species obsolete. This is called 'a bottle-necking' event, when the majority of a species dies off leaving only the successful mutation.

wonkavision hmmm I beg to differ

The thread was "created" and is titled creation VS evolution. And thus suggests the two are opposing views. I am suggesting perhaps the two are not so opposing ideas and that both sides may have valid points.

Creationism fits within the definition of "theory". It has been repeatedly tested, is widely accepted, and can be used to make predictions.

The concept of God, the way in which God is described, disqualifies the proof of God, or disproof, for that matter, within science.

the·o·ry
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Creationism fits within the definition of "theory". It has been repeatedly tested, is widely accepted, and can be used to make predictions.

You are confusing the Argumentum Ad Numerum logical fallacy (the more people support it the more likely its true) with acceptance by the valid scientific community. The members of the valid scientific community are recognized based on their proven merits, not on their ability to yell the loudest or scare people with threats of hellfire and brimstone.