Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Just as another anecdote, I went 5k - 12th grade to a private Christian school. I was taught evolution with no mention of god(s).
The idea of God "using" evolution for anything strikes me as ridiculous. It would violate more scientific laws than just creating things ex nihilo.
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 it is just that you seem to feel it impossible to be wrong.No, I haven't been shown wrong. The questions, purposely or ignorantly, didn't address the issue. They were leading and misleading.
I think your idiosyncratic use of the term creationism and created might cause unnecessary confusion.
isn't a scientific term for evolution.
It is a term often used by opponents of evolution for their own theories of divine intervention and manufacture of "kinds."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
The latter would mean teaching a naturalistic worldview, the former does not.
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.
Nope, you answer the question instead of attempting to change the focus.
Humanity didn't exist. Now humanity exists. Why? How?
Yes.
Boy, you atheistic creationists are fond of the 'yer a liar' response when you can't pawn your atheistic swill on others.
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.
Science classes in the public schools I attended didn´t teach this.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.
There aren´t any "naturalistic" mechanisms, there are "natural" mechanisms.When the creation of humanity is attributed solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms, the resulting worldview is atheistic creationism.
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.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.
The benefit of the doubt I am willing to give before I stick with uncharitable assumptions is huge.It took you that long to figure that out?
The ignore function can be a blessing at times.This message is hidden because justlookinla is on your ignore list.
Ahhhhh.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?