God used Evolution to create man

[Delphiki]

... and another field considers how chemical processes are responsible for life from non-life.

No. That is abiogenesis. Not evolution. (for the 3,986,273rd time)

 

[justlookinla]

Everything you know and believe shapes your worldview.

True. That's why the atheistic Darwinist creationist worldview is a philosophy which shouldn't be taught in schools.

QUOTE][And atheism isn't part of that, because atheism isn't about believing something. It's about "not believing" something. Nobody shapes worldviews based on what they do not believe.[/QUOTE]

Atheism is a position taken after consideration of the claims for a deity and of course that position shapes worldviews. Not believing in atheistic Darwinist creationism shapes my worldview, so yes, one's worldview is shaped by what they do not believe.

My worldview is shaped by my atheism in exactly the same way as your worldview is being shaped by not believing in Shiva, Thor and Zeus.

I agree. I've considered the claims of Shiva, Thor and Zeus and found them lacking, therefore rejecting those claims eliminates those 'deities' and my worldview is impacted by it.

It's stupid.

My worldview is the result of the things I DO believe, not the result of what I do NOT believe.

Coming here, continually arguing against positions in which you don't believe, definitely shapes your worldview.

 

[Loudmouth]

True. That's why the atheistic Darwinist creationist worldview is a philosophy which shouldn't be taught in schools.

Please explain why we should not let evidence shape our ideas of how nature works.

 

[justlookinla]

Please explain why we should not let evidence shape our ideas of how nature works.

By all means do it.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The common thread though is a basic rejection of a 'higher power', isn't it?

One cannot reject something that is not real. I cannot reject Leprechauns.
I can, however, reject the notion of the existence of a higher power, because the notion is something that I can show exists.

 

[justlookinla]

Please explain why we should not let evidence shape our ideas of how nature works.

And I have no problem with that. It's when it becomes the guesses and suppositions of atheistic Darwinist creationism that I have problems.

 

[Loudmouth]

By all means do it.

Then why are you arguing against the theories that are based on evidence?

 

[Delphiki]

And I have no problem with that. It's when it becomes the guesses and suppositions of atheistic Darwinist creationism that I have problems.

What is "atheistic Darwinist creationism"? Is it that idiotic catchprase you use? Because nobody subscribes to that except you.

 

[Loudmouth]

And I have no problem with that. It's when it becomes the guesses and suppositions of atheistic Darwinist creationism that I have problems.

What guesses and suppositions? What "atheistic Darwinist creationism"? We are talking about the theory of evolution, not your make-believe.

 

[justlookinla]

Then why are you arguing against the theories that are based on evidence?

I'm arguing against the faith based view of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

What guesses and suppositions? What "atheistic Darwinist creationism"? We are talking about the theory of evolution, not your make-believe.

We're talking about the only impetus considered which created humanity was the impetus of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. There is absolutely no evidence that such an impetus created humanity.

 

[justlookinla]

What is "atheistic Darwinist creationism"? Is it that idiotic catchprase you use? Because nobody subscribes to that except you.

Please point out the part with which you disagree....

Atheistic Darwinist creationism is the view that ONLY random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Please point out the part with which you disagree....

Atheistic Darwinist creationism is the view that ONLY random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

By that definition, Atheistic Darwinist creationism is not a scientific theory. Therefore it is not taught in schools as science.

 

[HitchSlap]

There is absolutely no evidence that such an impetus created humanity.

Just so we're clear here; you're talking about the god, right?

 

[Linuxgal]

Atheistic Darwinist creationism is the view that ONLY random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

Wrong on three counts.

The grand synthesis of descent with variation makes no reference to any god, so not only is it is not a theist theory, it is not an atheist theory. Theology doesn't apply in any sense.

Darwin's ideas have been incorporated, along with Mendel's ideas, into the modern theory, so it is not correct to call it "Darwinist" anymore.

The theory explains the variety of species on the Earth, not how the Earth got here.

 

[justlookinla]

By that definition, Atheistic Darwinist creationism is not a scientific theory. Therefore it is not taught in schools as science.

I've asked over and over and over, probably hundreds of times now, show where any impetus, other than ONLY random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless impetus is allowed in schools. That's the only creationist viewpoint allowed.

 

[justlookinla]

Just so we're clear here; you're talking about the god, right?

Just to be clear here, we're talking about only naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity, right?

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong on three counts.

The grand synthesis of descent with variation makes no reference to any god, so not only is it is not a theist theory, it is not an atheist theory. Theology doesn't apply in any sense.

Yes, it's an atheistic creationist viewpoint. The creative impetus for the creation of all life we observe today eliminates anything other than non-theistic guesses and suppositions.

Darwin's ideas have been incorporated, along with Mendel's ideas, into the modern theory, so it is not correct to call it "Darwinist" anymore.

The theory explains the variety of species on the Earth, not how the Earth got here.

The theory is nothing more than a series of guesses and suppositions concerning how all life was created from a single life form of long long ago.

 

[Dizredux]

Yes, it's an atheistic creationist viewpoint.

It seems clear that you consider any scientific that doesn't mention God as atheistic. As viewpoints go, this is a little (cough, cough) one might say--strange?.

The creative impetus for the creation of all life we observe today eliminates anything other than non-theistic guesses and suppositions.

It is your story and you are going to stick to it no matter what the evidence.

The theory is nothing more than a series of guesses and suppositions concerning how all life was created from a single life form of long long ago.

Since you know so terribly little about either science or evolution, your comment doesn't carry much weight.

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm arguing against the faith based view of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

Problem is, evolution doesn't go into anything in regards to philosophy or theology on way or the other, and it is evidenced based, regardless as to whether or not you like it.