you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 4 points 6 months ago* (5 children)

The creative justifications for creationism that try to approach something like science amuse me. Like Kents Hovind and Ham are both too stupid and incurious to be fun; a creationist who’s at least knowledgeable enough to look at “variable c” “”theories”” is entertaining to engage with. That’s part of how I’d justify calling this a “meme” anyway - it’s one of the brighter ones manufacturing a meme to sell to the stupid ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    I am torn about this situation.

    On the one hand, if this community is supposed to be about science (the procedure by which we achieve greater understanding of our world), not philosophy or religion, then does this meme fit here?

    While on the other, this community is "A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking", so carry on!🤪

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    if this community is supposed to be about science (the procedure by which we achieve greater understanding of our world), not philosophy

    Arguably, you can't have science without philosophy. For example you're distinguishing what's science based on the work of 20th century philosophers

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

  • source
  • parent