How were you taught Evolution?

[justlookinla]

Fundamentalists are typically infatuated with what schools teach and specifically, what is taught in science.

You are referring to fundie atheistic creationism? No?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The issue, among others, which will be decided in the course is if teaching that all of life, including humanity, is solely, completely, totally, only the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Reword, move, change focus....whatever.....the focus will remain the same, the issue will remain the same. Should inherently atheistic creationism be taught in schools?

And the answer to that question is no, atheistic creationism should not be taught. Fortunately, according to what we've seen in this thread, that is not happening. If you disagree, adress this point: both Christian schools and public schools are teaching evolution the same way and, because the former are obviously not espousing an atheistic creationism, it is illogical to conclude that the latter are.

 

[Dizredux]

If naturalistic mechanisms are the sole impetus for life as it exists on earth (not abiogenesis), then God is implicitly excluded from the process. An implicitly Godless creation (not abiogenesis) is the only creationist viewpoint taught, or allowed in schools today.

This has been discussed many times and you are wrong on this. God is not excluded except perhaps on your planet. By the way, what is the color of the sky on that planet?

No, you're still avoiding the point. If it's taught that the only mechanism for the creation of life (not abiogenesis) from a single life form to the life we observe today is solely by naturalistic mechanisms, that's teaching a creationist viewpoint. While God isn't expliticy affirmed or denied in that particular creationist viewpoint, it's implicit that any deviation from an entirely naturalistic process is error. 'We have the answer to the creation of life' (not abiogenesis) is the inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint being taught in our schools today.

Rebutted so many times. So far, you haven't been able to provide even one example. Again, what color is the sky on your planet.

Again and again and again I've pointed out this isn't about including God in any creationist viewpoint in schools. This is about allowing one, and only one, creationist viewpoint in our schools. The inherently atheistic one.

You have been asked many times what other viewpoint would you like to see presented in science class? So far, no answer as far as I can tell.

They teach that life is proven to exist (not abiogenesis) only, totally, completely, solely by naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago. Nothing else is allowed, nothing else is needed, nothing else but one creationist viewpoint.

Again what other viewpoint would you like to see presented?

The student doesn't have to agree with anything taught in our schools. The result of that is a failing grade. They're forced to agree, like it or not.

No, as long as the student can answer the questions correctly that is all that is needed for a good grade. Agreement is not a necessity for most teachers.

Right, the schools teach, in essence, that you, little children, are completely, totally, solely the result of naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago. And if they disagree with that, they fail. Atheistic creationism. Again, this isn't about requiring religious creationist views to be presented in schools. Again, all they have to do is to demonstrate they know the material. Agreement is not a requirement.

Again, this isn't about requiring religious creationist views to be presented in schools.

Again what viewpoint would you like to see presented in science class. I am really only aware of two, scientific and creationist. You seem to be battling against something you cannot show exists. Talk about tilting at imaginary windmills!

Your subtle change in the wording is noted. The issue is what the issue has always been. The teaching that you, little children, are the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. Stop teaching creationism in schools. Eliminate atheistic creationism.

Including physics creationism, math creationism, chemistry creationism, astronomy creationism, geology creationism, archeological creationism and paleontology creationism as examples. Again what would you prefer to be taught in their place?

I really don't expect a rational response from you any more than this one was rational but hope springs eternal.


Dizredux

 

[quatona]

And again...no answer.

That´s because the question is loaded with a faulty premise.
In my formal education as a Badminton trainer, God wasn´t mentioned either. Doesn´t mean that it´s atheistic Badminton that was taught.
God, per Its very definition, is irrelevant in science as it is in Badminton technique and tactics.
Same with my education as a guitarist, a guitar teacher, a sound technician and a systemic counselor.

 

[bhsmte]

This has been discussed many times and you are wrong on this. God is not excluded except perhaps on your planet. By the way, what is the color of the sky on that planet?


Rebutted so many times. So far, you haven't been able to provide even one example. Again, what color is the sky on your planet.

You have been asked many times what other viewpoint would you like to see presented in science class? So far, no answer as far as I can tell.

Again what other viewpoint would you like to see presented?

No, as long as the student can answer the questions correctly that is all that is needed for a good grade. Agreement is not a necessity for most teachers.

Right, the schools teach, in essence, that you, little children, are completely, totally, solely the result of naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago. And if they disagree with that, they fail. Atheistic creationism. Again, this isn't about requiring religious creationist views to be presented in schools. Again, all they have to do is to demonstrate they know the material. Agreement is not a requirement.

Again what viewpoint would you like to see presented in science class. I am really only aware of two, scientific and creationist. You seem to be battling against something you cannot show exists. Talk about tilting at imaginary windmills!

Including physics creationism, math creationism, chemistry creationism, astronomy creationism, geology creationism, archeological creationism and paleontology creationism as examples. Again what would you prefer to be taught in their place?

I really don't expect a rational response from you any more than this one was rational but hope springs eternal.


Dizredux

Something tells me, we are way past the point of a rational response with any objective support for a position.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

That´s because the question is loaded with a faulty premise.
In my formal education as a Badminton trainer, God wasn´t mentioned either. Doesn´t mean that it´s atheistic Badminton that was taught.
God, per Its very definition, is irrelevant in science as it is in Badminton technique and tactics.
Same with my education as a guitarist, a guitar teacher, a sound technician and a systemic counselor.

He doesn't seem to understand the error in trying to prove his premise (atheistic creationism is being taught) by demanding an answer to a question that requires that premise to be true to be answered.

 

[justlookinla]

This has been discussed many times and you are wrong on this. God is not excluded except perhaps on your planet. By the way, what is the color of the sky on that planet?


Rebutted so many times. So far, you haven't been able to provide even one example. Again, what color is the sky on your planet.

You have been asked many times what other viewpoint would you like to see presented in science class? So far, no answer as far as I can tell.

Again what other viewpoint would you like to see presented?

No, as long as the student can answer the questions correctly that is all that is needed for a good grade. Agreement is not a necessity for most teachers.

Right, the schools teach, in essence, that you, little children, are completely, totally, solely the result of naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago. And if they disagree with that, they fail. Atheistic creationism. Again, this isn't about requiring religious creationist views to be presented in schools. Again, all they have to do is to demonstrate they know the material. Agreement is not a requirement.

Again what viewpoint would you like to see presented in science class. I am really only aware of two, scientific and creationist. You seem to be battling against something you cannot show exists. Talk about tilting at imaginary windmills!

Including physics creationism, math creationism, chemistry creationism, astronomy creationism, geology creationism, archeological creationism and paleontology creationism as examples. Again what would you prefer to be taught in their place?

I really don't expect a rational response from you any more than this one was rational but hope springs eternal.


Dizredux

It's good to have hope. I have more than hope that the atheistic creationist viewpoint will be eliminated from our schools curriculum.

 

[justlookinla]

He doesn't seem to understand the error in trying to prove his premise (atheistic creationism is being taught) by demanding an answer to a question that requires that premise to be true to be answered.

The premise is true. You, and others, are concerned that the atheistic creationist message is going to be eliminated from our schools. Your concern is justified.

 

[biggles53]

Oh, look.......24 to ZERO who report that the evolutionary science they were taught was NOT presented as an atheistic world view...!

My, my....

 

[quatona]

the atheistic creationist viewpoint

 

[justlookinla]

Oh, look.......24 to ZERO who report that the evolutionary science they were taught was NOT presented as an atheistic world view...!

My, my....

Yes, 'my my'.

I don't think anyone's claimed that Darwinist creationism is taught "With an explicit denial of God's involvement", or "With an explicit affirmation of God's involvement" or "Without either an affirmation or denial of God's involvement".

You see, the questions were leading and misleading.

Yes, 'my my'.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, look.......24 to ZERO who report that the evolutionary science they were taught was NOT presented as an atheistic world view...!

My, my....

It has to be a conspiracy.

 

[justlookinla]

It has to be a conspiracy.

It is. Between the forces of darkness.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The premise is true. You, and others, are concerned that the atheistic creationist message is going to be eliminated from our schools. Your concern is justified.

"The premise is true". Wow, compelling argument. This poll demonstrates that an atheist metaphysic is not being taught even by implication in schools. Thus your claim that your premise is true is convincing to no one but you. I think it would be cool if you actually presented an argument for your premise, one that addressed the fact that both Christian and secular schools are teaching evolution the same way.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

It is. Between the forces of darkness.

Yup. Me and the forces of darkness conspired to produce a poll that demonstrates the falsity of your premise.

 

[bhsmte]

Yup. Me and the forces of darkness conspired to produce a poll that demonstrates the falsity of your premise.

Like I said, it has to be a conspiracy.

 

[justlookinla]

Yup. Me and the forces of darkness conspired to produce a poll that demonstrates the falsity of your premise.

Your poll was a joke.

 

[justlookinla]

"The premise is true". Wow, compelling argument. This poll demonstrates that an atheist metaphysic is not being taught even by implication in schools.

No it doesn't. The fact is, atheistic creationist is taught by implication.

Thus your claim that your premise is true is convincing to no one but you. I think it would be cool if you actually presented an argument for your premise, one that addressed the fact that both Christian and secular schools are teaching evolution the same way.

Are they teaching creationism the same way

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Yes, 'my my'.

I don't think anyone's claimed that Darwinist creationism is taught "With an explicit denial of God's involvement", or "With an explicit affirmation of God's involvement" or "Without either an affirmation or denial of God's involvement".

You see, the questions were leading and misleading.

Yes, 'my my'.

Even with in respect to the question of children being taught "atheistic creationism" implicitly you have been proven wrong. Please explain how Christian schools which openly acknowledge God as the creator are teaching atheistic creationism. You've dodged this question many times now.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No it doesn't. The fact is, atheistic creationist is taught by implication.

Again, you've merely reiterated rather than support your premise. Do understand how debate works?

Are they teaching creationism the same way

Probably not. Quatona mentioned both theological classes and Catholic classes. The former would likely be taught much the same in public schools whereas the latter would not be taught at all, i suspect. But if you wish to claim that Christian schools are teaching pure evolution whereas secular schools are teaching atheistic creationism, that means the only difference is in the official beliefs of the institutions (remember, we many teachers in secular schools are Christians), not the actual material that's being presented. In other words, both types of school are teaching the same thing from which either metaphysical leap can be made.