How were you taught Evolution?

[Atheos canadensis]

I must have been very misunderstandable - since you are now the second poster who feels that my point was about Darwin´s theory being old, updated, modified or something. That was not my point, though.
I was merely hinting to the fact that "-ism" isn´t the usual term for a scientific theory; the term "Darwinism" suggests already that it is rather a philosophical position or an opinion, rather than a scientific theory. I have a nagging suspicion that it was invented by those who don´t accept evolution theory. That was all.
Yes, of course, he keeps beating an already rotten horse.
He is unable or unwilling to grasp the difference between science classes teaching solely natural explanations (which, in my experience, is the accurate description for what is being done in science classes in Christian schools just like in public schools), and science classes teaching that there are solely natural processes involved (which is neither done in Christian nor in public schools).
The latter would indeed qualify as teaching a naturalistic worldview. It wouldn´t belong in science classes, just as teaching any other worldview/religion/philosophy/metaphysics belongs in science classes. And, alas, pretty much everyone here confirms that it isn´t taught.

Yes, Darwinsm is kind of an outdated term, though I think they still use it more in the UK. I think Creationists like it for the reason you say, i.e. an "ism" sounds less scientific.

I hope to get more responses, but even your response alone indicating that the definition provided is what you were taught by the Jesuits proves that it is not atheistic creationism as Justlookin insists despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Just as another anecdote, I went 5k - 12th grade to a private Christian school. I was taught evolution with no mention of god(s).

Hey selfinflikted, would you mind responding to this question?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The idea of God "using" evolution for anything strikes me as ridiculous. It would violate more scientific laws than just creating things ex nihilo.

I see you report that in school you were taught explicitly that God had no role in evolution. Could you give a bit more detail on the way this was indicated to you? And I assume this was in a secuular school, correct?

 

[justlookinla]

Clearly that isn't being taught, so you have nothing to complain about. Just look at the results of the poll no one was taught evolution thus way, and 2 were taught it with god mentioned as being a part of it.

Stop hanging onto this, you have been shown wrong.

No, I haven't been shown wrong. The questions, purposely or ignorantly, didn't address the issue. They were leading and misleading.

 

[Dizredux]

No, I haven't been shown wrong. The questions, purposely or ignorantly, didn't address the issue. They were leading and misleading.

No it is just that you seem to feel it impossible to be wrong.

Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

No it is just that you seem to feel it impossible to be wrong.

Dizredux

The house of cards would tumble if he admits being wrong.

 

[justlookinla]

I think your idiosyncratic use of the term creationism and created might cause unnecessary confusion.

While there may be a bit of confusion (to be generous) on the part of atheistic creationists, there is no confusion in the use of the term. Something or someone created all of life we observe today (not abiogenesis). Who/what created it?

isn't a scientific term for evolution.

Creation is an appropriate term for the view that from non-humanity was created humanity.

It is a term often used by opponents of evolution for their own theories of divine intervention and manufacture of "kinds."

It's a term that Darwinist creationists would rather not use for obvious purposes. Darwinist creationists would rather be vague and misleading concerning the fact that there was no humanity, then there was humanity and how the creation of humanity from non-humanity occurred.

The present faith-based worldview of atheistic creationists is that all of life, including humanity, is the creation of only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Why confuse people by calling both of those beliefs or processes "creationism" it really adds nothing to your argument except an increased likelyhood of causing misunderstanding.

Why use a term that doesn't describe the creation of humanity from non-humanity? The only reason is to not be quite open about the atheistic creationist viewpoint that is taught in schools today.

The schools do teach that the human body evolved ( or in your idiosyncratic meaning of the term was "created") via the process of (neo)darwinian evolution.

Yes, schools teach that humanity is the result of only, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. That's the only creationist viewpoint allowed in schools today and is inherently atheistic.

The same process studied in public schools. They do however have a philosophical/ religious view that ones soul (an immaterial and apparently supernatural aspect of the human being) was a direct and special creation of God. It wasn't the result of evolution whereas the body/ physical organism is.

Atheistic creationism results in as much a philosophical, worldview, as theistic creationism.

Public schools teach the same science but don't get into the religious questions due to separation of church and state issues. It's up to students how, if at all, to integrate the science into their religious worldview.

It shouldn't be up to students to hear only one creationist worldview, atheistic creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

This article is a little old but I thought it was interesting that Pope John Paul 2 said that "evolution is more than just a theory." It also notes that evolution is taught in Catholic schools:

Pope John Paul II's statement yesterday acknowledging that evolution is ''more than just a theory'' is unlikely to change significantly the teaching of evolution in Roman Catholic schools, where it is already a standard part of the curriculum.

But as the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools has re-emerged as an increasingly contentious issue, the Pope's statement is being viewed as a powerful support for the idea that religious faith and the teaching of evolution in the country's schools can easily coexist.
Pope Shows How Faith And Evolution Coexist - NYTimes.com

Christianity creationism and Godless creationism can never coexist. It doesn't exist in the Roman Catholic church.

 

[justlookinla]

No, with the issue at hand I have tried it often enough, with no avail.
What I need to find out is: are you generally unable to detect structural differences in different wordings, or is this a problem you have only with the issue at hand. As I said, in view of your confusion we need to take it very slow.

I gave you a creationist example of differences in wordings.

Of course I do, but that´s not the difference I am talking about.

What I am talking about is the difference between:
Science classes address solely the natural mechanisms that were involved (in said development).
and
Science classes teach that there were solely natural mechanisms at work (in said development).

Pseudo-science classes address the question of all of life being created from a single life form from long long ago with the answer, and the only creationist view allowed, that it was by only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[justlookinla]

No, for crying out loud.
We suggest that science classes in Catholic schools teach solely the natural mechanisms. Which is substantially different from suggesting that they teach that there were solely natural mechanisms.

Right, Christian schools do not teach, as do the public schools, that humanity is the result of solely natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

The latter would mean teaching a naturalistic worldview, the former does not.

When the creation of humanity is attributed solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms, the resulting worldview is atheistic creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

No it is just that you seem to feel it impossible to be wrong.

Dizredux

Back to ya!

 

[justlookinla]

The house of cards would tumble if he admits being wrong.

The house of cards will tumble when atheistic creationism ceases to be taught in school.

 

[Kylie]

Nope, you answer the question instead of attempting to change the focus.

Humanity didn't exist. Now humanity exists. Why? How?

Are you incapable of answering a question? Why on earth do you think that CREATION BY AN INTELLIGENT ENTITY is the only way for things to come into existence?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Yes.



Boy, you atheistic creationists are fond of the 'yer a liar' response when you can't pawn your atheistic swill on others.

I didn't call you a liar, I pointed out that by disputing the fact that the definition of Darwinism you posted is taught in Christian schools, you are implicitly saying that those who profess this are lying.

The fact is, nobody who's attended a Christian school has commented on what the school teaches regarding how humanity was created. The fact is, Christianity does not attribute the creation of humanity to solely, totally, completely to naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.



Not true.



True



Not true.

Still waiting on other responses, but quatona's response is sufficient to show that you are wrong. He says that the definition of Darwinism you posted was indeed taught in his Catholic school. So now we are back to this:

1.We know from various people here that Christian schools are teaching the posted definition of Darwinism.
2.Christian schools are obviously not teaching atheistic creationism
3.Therefore, the posted definition of Darwinism is not atheistic creationism.

I'm sure you realize that in order to support your premise that schools are teaching atheistic creationism you need to provide evidence against point 1. Unfortunately for you it seems to be your persistently unevidenced opinion against actual testimony. So how do you respond to Quatona's testimony that the posted definition of Darwinism was taught in Catholic school? Do you have anything besides denial?

 

[quatona]

Right, Christian schools do not teach, as do the public schools, that humanity is the result of solely natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Science classes in the public schools I attended didn´t teach this.
They did exactly the same as the science classes in the Catholic school: teach solely the natural mechanisms involved in the process.

When the creation of humanity is attributed solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms, the resulting worldview is atheistic creationism.

There aren´t any "naturalistic" mechanisms, there are "natural" mechanisms.
The resulting (rather: underlying) worldview would be naturalism, which indeed includes atheism (but then there´s Michael who believes in a natural God).
The worldview wouldn´t be accurately described as "creationism", since no creation is postulated. All that is postulated is change of that which already exists.

But since this isn´t what is taught in public schools, anyway, all this is irrelevant, anyway.

Now, since you are so convinced that science classes in public schools teach "that humanity is the result of solely natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago", I´m sure you can produce the curriculums and school literature that substantiate your claim.

 

[quatona]

Pseudo-science classes address the question of all of life being created from a single life form from long long ago with the answer, and the only creationist view allowed, that it was by only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms.

So you don´t understand the difference between the wordings, and in evading my questions you demonstrate that you are unwilling to learn it. Ok. Then I am wasting my time with you.

 

[USincognito]

This message is hidden because justlookinla is on your ignore list.

Ahhhhh.

 

[lasthero]

So you don´t understand the difference between the wordings, and in evading my questions you demonstrate that you are unwilling to learn it. Ok. Then I am wasting my time with you.

It took you that long to figure that out?

 

[quatona]

It took you that long to figure that out?

The benefit of the doubt I am willing to give before I stick with uncharitable assumptions is huge.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This message is hidden because justlookinla is on your ignore list.

Ahhhhh.

The ignore function can be a blessing at times.
Which leads me to ask if I am also on someone's ignore list here......