How were you taught Evolution?

[Atheos canadensis]

Funny how the votes go from 0 to 4 when I point out that nobody voted for the first option, even justlookingla... Now, I wonder if it's a matter of dishonesty or a matter of not understanding the poll.

I wouldn't suggest actual dishonesty. But, if memory serves, those who voted for explicit denial of God's involvement (e.g. CrazyforGod) are the YEC, biblical literalist types. As such they don't believe in evolution at all, so it's possible that they construed any teaching of evolution to be explicitly against God. I have asked a few of them to elaborate on their experience and whether they subscribe to a YEC belief. No answers though.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

If by 'people' you are referring specifically to anyone who bothers to answer your question, then no.

Thanks for the response. I suspected that would be the. Just wondering how many people shared Justlookinla's impression that not teaching God did it is the same as teaching that He didn't. Apparently no one so far.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

First, for me, is the scripture in my signature. A close second is the impossibility for solely naturalistic mechanisms to produce the infinitely complex and varied life we observe today by a series of random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanisms which is the basis for Darwinist creationism.

So do you actually believe evolution (or macroevolution if you prefer) occurred?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The evidence for solely naturalistic processes producing humanity from a single life form of long long ago.....please?



Ditto.

I see you've finally had some marginal success in your attempt to swing the discussion in the direction of evidence for evolution. I mean it was a fairly artless attempt to avoid presenting even one shred of evidence that your "atheistic creationism" is taught in any science class besides those populating your overwrought imagination, but nice try.

You also refuse to give a straight answer on whether you think "other impetuses" besides the natural ones should be taught in science class. I think we both know the answer is yes, but we also both know that you can't admit that without undermining that high horse you're perched upon.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

What is being taught in science class is a single creation worldview. The smokescreen of 'we can only teach science in a science class' doesn't hide the conclusion of this 'science' is actually a creationist view that all of life we observe today is the completely, totally, only, solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. Your leading, and misleading, questions concerning God being mentioned or not mentioned thereby suggesting a neutral position concerning creation is a false conclusion. It's not neutral. The creationist worldview taught doesn't mention God, but it does teach, covertly, that God isn't needed. Isn't required. The only thing that is responsible for non-humanity becoming humanity are naturalistic mechanisms. They're adequate, proven and the only answer allowed for non-humanity becoming humanity.

This the the issue you're not dealing with.



Of course it does, according to the 'science' being taught to our children. Nothing is needed for humanity to be created from a single life form of long long ago other than naturalistic mechanisms. There is no other creative process proven except for one....naturalistic mechanisms.

Deal with the issue.

Perhaps you could provide a rare straight answer to this: if evolutionary theory is so inherently atheistic, why do so many Christians here and worldwide accept it in exactly the same form that atheists do? I know you will claim they don't, but that's just your assertion against first hand testimony from numerous members here.

 

[justlookinla]

So do you actually believe evolution (or macroevolution if you prefer) occurred?

Not in the sense of Darwinist, undirected, evolution. I embrace intelligent design.

 

[justlookinla]

Perhaps you could provide a rare straight answer to this: if evolutionary theory is so inherently atheistic, why do so many Christians here and worldwide accept it in exactly the same form that atheists do? I know you will claim they don't, but that's just your assertion against first hand testimony from numerous members here.

No Christian accepts the view that all of life, including humanity, is a Godless creation process.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No Christian accepts the view that all of life, including humanity, is a Godless creation process.

Correct. So the fact that many have professed belief in the wiki definition you posted and the lessons they learned in school should lead you to the obvious conclusion that those things are not inherently atheistic as you imagine.

Not in the sense of Darwinist, undirected, evolution. I embrace intelligent design.

Does that mean you accept that we are descended from a non-human ancestor?

Also, you missed this:

You also refuse to give a straight answer on whether you think "other impetuses" besides the natural ones should be taught in science class. I think we both know the answer is yes, but we also both know that you can't admit that without undermining that high horse you're perched upon.

 

[justlookinla]

I see you've finally had some marginal success in your attempt to swing the discussion in the direction of evidence for evolution. I mean it was a fairly artless attempt to avoid presenting even one shred of evidence that your "atheistic creationism" is taught in any science class besides those populating your overwrought imagination, but nice try.

You're still not getting it. Or maybe you are but just aren't able to face it. This is about creationism, how was humanity created from a single life form of long long ago. Answer: Not by a series of random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless naturalistic processes.

You also refuse to give a straight answer on whether you think "other impetuses" besides the natural ones should be taught in science class. I think we both know the answer is yes, but we also both know that you can't admit that without undermining that high horse you're perched upon.

Teach all the natural impetuses you have observation and evidence for. Don't teach psuedo-science of atheistic creationism.

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.​

If it ain't that, don't teach it. If it is, teach it.

That alone would, and will in the future, eliminate the one creationist worldview being taught as science today.....atheistic creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

Correct. So the fact that many have professed belief in the wiki definition you posted and the lessons they learned in school should lead you to the obvious conclusion that those things are not inherently atheistic as you imagine.

If the creationist view teaches that only naturalistic processes created humanity, no other impetus, no other involvement, no other power needed than only, solely, completely naturalistic processes, then that creationist view is an atheistic creationist view.

Does that mean you accept that we are descended from a non-human ancestor?

Nope. We are a special creation.

Also, you missed this:

You also refuse to give a straight answer on whether you think "other impetuses" besides the natural ones should be taught in science class. I think we both know the answer is yes, but we also both know that you can't admit that without undermining that high horse you're perched upon.

I answered above.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You're still not getting it. Or maybe you are but just aren't able to face it. This is about creationism, how was humanity created from a single life form of long long ago. Answer: Not by a series of random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless naturalistic processes.



Teach all the natural impetuses you have observation and evidence for. Don't teach psuedo-science of atheistic creationism.

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.​

If it ain't that, don't teach it. If it is, teach it.

That alone would, and will in the future, eliminate the one creationist worldview being taught as science today.....atheistic creationism.

Yet a gain you've avoided actually answering the question asked. Do you think "other impetuses" besides the natural ones should be taught in science class?

 

[justlookinla]

Yet a gain you've avoided actually answering the question asked. Do you think "other impetuses" besides the natural ones should be taught in science class?

Of course not. I've stated that over and over.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

If the creationist view teaches that only naturalistic processes created humanity, no other impetus, no other involvement, no other power needed than only, solely, completely naturalistic processes, then that creationist view is an atheistic creationist view.

Correct. But you have not given evidence that such a view is being taught. And it certainly doesn't address the fact that many Christians have professed belief in the wiki definition you posted and the lessons they learned in school and that this proves that those views are not inherently atheistic. You keep dancing around this for obvious reasons.

Nope. We are a special creation.

That's what I thought. So you really object to evolution being taught at all. If you think we are a special creation than you should not be happy even if science classes taught explicitly that humans evolved through natural processes guided by God.

I answered above.

You quoted that post, but you avoided actually responding to the question posed.

 

[justlookinla]

Correct. But you have not given evidence that such a view is being taught. And it certainly doesn't address the fact that many Christians have professed belief in the wiki definition you posted and the lessons they learned in school and that this proves that those views are not inherently atheistic. You keep dancing around this for obvious reasons.

I'm not dancing around anything. No Christian believes in a Godless creation of all life.

That's what I thought. So you really object to evolution being taught at all.

Nope. And this is something else I've made clear over and over.

If you think we are a special creation than you should not be happy even if science classes taught explicitly that humans evolved through natural processes guided by God.

Creationism has no place in our schools, IMO. That's why the one creationist view which is being promoted in schools now will be challenged and eliminated.
That will leave a form of evolution of which we have evidence and observation for. (Science)

Of course the atheist agenda will oppose pulling their creationist worldview out of our schools.

You quoted that post, but you avoided actually responding to the question posed.

What part didn't I answer?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Of course not. I've stated that over and over.

So to review, you don't think that any non-natural mechanisms should be taught, but you also think it is inherently atheistic not to mention those non-natural mechanisms. Seems like you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

I'm not dancing around anything. No Christian believes in a Godless creation of all life.

There, you just did it again. Instead of responding to the point you just repeated the obvious point that Christians aren't atheists. Please address the fact that Christians accept the view of origins in the wiki definition.

Nope. And this is something else I've made clear over and over.



Creationism has no place in our schools, IMO. That's why the one creationist view which is being promoted in schools now will be challenged and eliminated.
That will leave a form of evolution of which we have evidence and observation for. (Science)

Of course the atheist agenda will oppose pulling their creationist worldview out of our schools.

So is it just the idea that humans evolved from non-humans that you object to or does your displeasure extend to all other organisms as well (e.g. birds evolved from dinosaurs)?

 

[justlookinla]

So to review, you don't think that any non-natural mechanisms should be taught, but you also think it is inherently atheistic not to mention those non-natural mechanisms. Seems like you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

Nope. It's inherently atheistic to teach that natural mechanisms alone, needing nothing else, sufficient within themselves, created humanity from a single life form from long long ago.

There, you just did it again. Instead of responding to the point you just repeated the obvious point that Christians aren't atheists. Please address the fact that Christians accept the view of origins in the wiki definition.

After discussion, Christians modify the wiki definition to include God in some form or fashion.

Once again, no Christian embraces the viewpoint that all of life we observe today is a Godless creation. And that is addressing the wiki definition.

So is it just the idea that humans evolved from non-humans that you object to or does your displeasure extend to all other organisms as well (e.g. birds evolved from dinosaurs)?

I object to the viewpoint that any life was created entirely, totally, completely, only by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Read the definition of science again....

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.​

Atheistic creationism, creation of all life by only, solely naturalistic mechanisms isn't science. It's faith-based creationism.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Nope. It's inherently atheistic to teach that natural mechanisms alone, needing nothing else, sufficient within themselves, created humanity from a single life form from long long ago.

So you agree that supernatural mechanisms shouldn't be taught, but natural mechanisms shouldn't be considered sufficient. That seems like a paradox.

After discussion, Christians modify the wiki definition to include God in some form or fashion.

Once again, no Christian embraces the viewpoint that all of life we observe today is a Godless creation. And that is addressing the wiki definition.

They modify it no more than you do. To you it is implicitly atheistic, to them it is implicitly theistic. But you refuse to accept this.

I object to the viewpoint that any life was created entirely, totally, completely, only by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Not what I asked. You don't believe that humans evolved from non-humans whether by divine influence or not. Do you believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs with the help of God?

Atheistic creationism, creation of all life by only, solely naturalistic mechanisms isn't science. It's faith-based creationism.

There's a whole bunch of evidence for evolution that conforms to the definition of science. A discussion of that evidence is not the focus of this thread and would not, I suspect based on your attitude, be fruitful.

 

[justlookinla]

So you agree that supernatural mechanisms shouldn't be taught, but natural mechanisms shouldn't be considered sufficient. That seems like a paradox.

Not at all. Why teach the creationist viewpoint that only, solely, completely naturalistic mechanisms created all life from a single life form of long long ago?

They modify it no more than you do. To you it is implicitly atheistic, to them it is implicitly theistic. But you refuse to accept this.

It's theistic only if it's modified to include God. In discussions with Christians, those who do not embrace the worldview of Godless creationism, humanity isn't the product of only, solely, completely naturalistic mechanisms.

Not what I asked. You don't believe that humans evolved from non-humans whether by divine influence or not.

Right. I don't embrace that creationist viewpoint which claims humans were created from non-humans.

Do you believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs with the help of God?

No.

There's a whole bunch of evidence for evolution that conforms to the definition of science. A discussion of that evidence is not the focus of this thread and would not, I suspect based on your attitude, be fruitful.

There's no evidence for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago which would fit that definition of science.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Not at all. Why teach the creationist viewpoint that only, solely, completely naturalistic mechanisms created all life from a single life form of long long ago?

Really. Please roughly outline how you would teach evolution in a way that doesn't invoke supernatural influences but also doesn't present natural mechanisms as sufficient.

It's theistic only if it's modified to include God. In discussions with Christians, those who do not embrace the worldview of Godless creationism, humanity isn't the product of only, solely, completely naturalistic mechanisms.

Not quite. When they invoke God they are not modifying the scientific theory, they are expressing a metaphysical position. The theory remains unchanged.

Right. I don't embrace that creationist viewpoint which claims humans were created from non-humans.



No.

So, as I said you don't actually believe in evolution (in the way real evolutionary biologists, not you, use the word) at all. This seems to be at the root of your refusal to accept that the theory can be accepted by theists and atheists alike. I'm very interested to see what you would consider an acceptable way to teach it in science class.

There's no evidence for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago which would fit that definition of science.

There's no evidence that refutes the possibility of supernatural influence because no such influence could be detected scientifically.

 

[justlookinla]

Really. Please roughly outline how you would teach evolution in a way that doesn't invoke supernatural influences but also doesn't present natural mechanisms as sufficient.

Why teach that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient in and of themselves, needing nothing else, to create humanity from a single life form from long long ago? Don't teach any form of creationism.

That doesn't preclude the teaching of evolution though. It simply eliminates a faith-based atheistic creationist teaching from the classroom. If it's science, teach it, if not, drop it.

Not quite. When they invoke God they are not modifying the scientific theory, they are expressing a metaphysical position. The theory remains unchanged.

Yes they are changing it. They're adding to it.

, as I said you don't actually believe in evolution (in the way real evolutionary biologists, not you, use the word) at all.

I believe at some point in the past, there was no humanity. I believe that humanity now exists. The issue is how, by what means, was humanity created from non-humanity, specifically a single life form which existed long long ago. Wrap it in whatever word or phrase you wish, it's creationism.

This seems to be at the root of your refusal to accept that the theory can be accepted by theists and atheists alike. I'm very interested to see what you would consider an acceptable way to teach it in science class.

Don't teach creationism in science class. Drop Darwinism. Eliminate it.

There's no evidence that refutes the possibility of supernatural influence because no such influence could be detected scientifically.

If one claims that all of life, including humanity, is created by an impetus which is totally, completely, solely sufficient in and of itself, nothing else needed, nothing else allowed, the one explanation is true, then there is no possibility allowed or permitted for supernatural influence.