How were you taught Evolution?

[Atheos canadensis]

Certain members seem convinced that public schools are teaching "atheistic creationism", i.e. that God is not at all involved in evolution. In my education from elementary to post-secondary, I was never presented with either an affirmation or a denial of God's role in evolution. In other words I was taught the theory of evolution without any atheist or theist metaphysical component.

I was curious as to how typical this is, hence this poll. So, who remembers being taught evolution with:

A. An explicit atheistic metaphysic (God not involved)
B. An explicit theistic metaphysic (God started and/or maintains it)
C. No explicit metaphysical component

As a followup question, Do people think that not explicitly saying that God is behind evolution the same as saying the He isn't behind it?

 

[sfs]

I don't recall ever being taught evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Certain members seem convinced that public schools are teaching "atheistic creationism", i.e. that God is not at all involved in evolution. In my education from elementary to post-secondary, I was never presented with either an affirmation or a denial of God's role in evolution. In other words I was taught the theory of evolution without any atheist or theist metaphysical component.

I was curious as to how typical this is, hence this poll. So, who remembers being taught evolution with:

A. An explicit atheistic metaphysic (God not involved)
B. An explicit theistic metaphysic (God started and/or maintains it)
C. No explicit metaphysical component

As a followup question, Do people think that not explicitly saying that God is behind evolution the same as saying the He isn't behind it?

The question is misleading. The real question should be, 1) were you taught that all of life we observe today is the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago, or 2) were you taught that all of life we observe today is not the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

The issue is concerning what particular creationist worldview is presented in our schools.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The question is misleading. The real question should be, 1) were you taught that all of life we observe today is the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago, or 2) were you taught that all of life we observe today is not the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

The issue is concerning what particular creationist worldview is presented in our schools.

What you have outlined is exactly what I asked; where you taught evolution with either and affirmation or a denial that God was involved. I notice you didn't vote. Are you protesting or do you not remember?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Certain members seem convinced that public schools are teaching "atheistic creationism", i.e. that God is not at all involved in evolution. In my education from elementary to post-secondary, I was never presented with either an affirmation or a denial of God's role in evolution. In other words I was taught the theory of evolution without any atheist or theist metaphysical component.

I was curious as to how typical this is, hence this poll. So, who remembers being taught evolution with:

A. An explicit atheistic metaphysic (God not involved)
B. An explicit theistic metaphysic (God started and/or maintains it)
C. No explicit metaphysical component

As a followup question, Do people think that not explicitly saying that God is behind evolution the same as saying the He isn't behind it?

In my public school career evolution was hardly mentioned at all.

I learned about evolution from outside reading. The reading of evolution I did never, as far as I recall, ever said it was done without God. And I have been a devout Christian all my life, I think I would have noticed that.

 

[justlookinla]

What you have outlined is exactly what I asked; where you taught evolution with either and affirmation or a denial that God was involved. I notice you didn't vote. Are you protesting or do you not remember?

Nope. It's not about being taught creationist evolution with an affirmation or denial that God was involved, of course God isn't going to be mentioned. That's misleading and misdirection on your part.

The question is concerning the creationist viewpoint presented in our schools today which doesn't mention God (as it shouldn't, IMO) but does teach that the only truth in creationism is the truth that all of life was created only, totally, completely, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. No creationist viewpoint, including that one, should be taught in our schools.

 

[justlookinla]

In my public school career evolution was hardly mentioned at all.

I learned about evolution from outside reading. The reading of evolution I did never, as far as I recall, ever said it was done without God. And I have been a devout Christian all my life, I think I would have noticed that.

Can you give an example where the creationist theory which is taught in our schools was presented as anything other than an entirely, solely, naturalistic mechanism acting on a single life form from long long ago?

In other words, any deviation from that particular creationist viewpoint?

 

[Kylie]

Nope. It's not about being taught creationist evolution with an affirmation or denial that God was involved, of course God isn't going to be mentioned. That's misleading and misdirection on your part.

The question is concerning the creationist viewpoint presented in our schools today which doesn't mention God (as it shouldn't, IMO) but does teach that the only truth in creationism is the truth that all of life was created only, totally, completely, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. No creationist viewpoint, including that one, should be taught in our schools.

Is it also misleading to not mention God when talking about gravity?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Nope. It's not about being taught creationist evolution with an affirmation or denial that God was involved, of course God isn't going to be mentioned. That's misleading and misdirection on your part.

The question is concerning the creationist viewpoint presented in our schools today which doesn't mention God (as it shouldn't, IMO) but does teach that the only truth in creationism is the truth that all of life was created only, totally, completely, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. No creationist viewpoint, including that one, should be taught in our schools.

So you agree that God's role in evolution should not be discussed at all in science classes. So how do you propose the mechanisms of evolution be presented properly?

 

[EternalDragon]

How could evolution be taught without it being clearly obvious that it excluded God?

For me, and a lot of other people, many of the ideas presented by evolution theory defied logic and real science. Fortunately there are places like evolution news . org that allow freedom of research.

 

[justlookinla]

So you agree that God's role in evolution should not be discussed at all in science classes. So how do you propose the mechanisms of evolution be presented properly?

That's the job of the educators. It's not the job of the educators to promote and teach an atheistic creationist viewpoint.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

How could evolution be taught without it being clearly obvious that it excluded God?

For me, and a lot of other people, many of the ideas presented by evolution theory defied logic and real science. Fortunately there are places like evolution news . org that allow freedom of research.

You voted for option three, so you agree that there was no metaphysical conclusion either in favour or against divine involvement. So I repeat the followup question from the OP. Do you think that not explicitly saying that God is behind evolution the same as saying the He isn't behind it?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

That's the job of the educators. It's not the job of the educators to promote and teach an atheistic creationist viewpoint.

So you have no idea how it should be taught? You agree that God's role should not be mentioned at all, either to affirm or deny it. That is how it was presented to me. But to you that's the same thing as denying God's role. How could one possibly teach the pure science of evolution without mentioning God but avoid your complaint of implicit atheism?

 

[lasthero]

Fortunately there are places like evolution news . org that allow freedom of research.

Hold on there, big hoss.

What research? What advancements have ever come out of evolutionnews.org? Any exciting new discoveries? Anything that's actually been of use to actual scientists? Patents? Inventions? Anything?

 

[biggles53]

I was taught atheistic evolution, because gods were never once mentioned in the process...

I was also taught atheistic falling, because gods were never mentioned in gravitational theory...

I was also taught atheistic chemistry, because gods were never mentioned in the process of molecules acting with other molecules...

Oh, and then there was atheistic mathematics, atheistic geography, atheistic languages, athe......................................................

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Hold on there, big hoss.

What research? What advancements have ever come out of evolutionnews.org? Any exciting new discoveries? Anything that's actually been of use to actual scientists? Patents? Inventions? Anything?

I see you took the bait there.

 

[justlookinla]

You voted for option three, so you agree that there was no metaphysical conclusion either in favour or against divine involvement. So I repeat the followup question from the OP. Do you think that not explicitly saying that God is behind evolution the same as saying the He isn't behind it?

You should also have an option for those who agree or disagree that only one creationist viewpoint be taught in schools.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I was taught atheistic evolution, because gods were never once mentioned in the process...

I was also taught atheistic falling, because gods were never mentioned in gravitational theory...

I was also taught atheistic chemistry, because gods were never mentioned in the process of molecules acting with other molecules...

Oh, and then there was atheistic mathematics, atheistic geography, atheistic languages, athe......................................................

Perhaps justlookinla will address that point here. In the Why is Darwinism so dangerous thread he has given himself permission to avoid it because it is not focus of the discussion. But I started this thread so I know this point is very pertinent to the OP.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You should also have an option for those who agree or disagree that only one creationist viewpoint be taught in schools.

I think you''ll find the poll was to ascertain how evolution was taught to people, not how you think it should be taught. Let's let ED answer the question that was addressed to him, shall we?

 

[justlookinla]

So you have no idea how it should be taught?

As I said, leave that to the educators. Don't teach atheistic creationism.

You agree that God's role should not be mentioned at all, either to affirm or deny it. That is how it was presented to me.

I ask you again, was any other creationist viewpoint other than the creationist viewpoint that humanity, and all life we observe today, is solely, completely, totally, the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

If another creationist viewpoint was taught, would you please tell us what it was?

But to you that's the same thing as denying God's role. How could one possibly teach the pure science of evolution without mentioning God but avoid your complaint of implicit atheism?

Teach the pure science of evolution, but don't teach the one single solitary creationist viewpoint that you, children, are totally, completely, only, solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Why should that one creationist viewpoint be taught?