Yes. When we lived in DC I went to the National Cathedral School, which is an Episcopalian all-girls school affiliated with The National Cathedral, and my 7th grade science teacher shared her own beliefs about God being the creator of life. We also discussed the various belief systems about the origins of life based on what was taught in the lesson plans from the Smithsonian, and girls shared our own ideas. The theory of evolution wasnt typically taught in the 7th grade, but we were taking advantage of the special exhibition, and it was a lively, fun way to end the school year. My family moved to LA that summer and Ive attended a 7-12 private independent school (not affiliated with any religion) ever since. Though we touched upon evolution and the origins of life at NCS, my academic education on evolution really began in 9th grade biology. We learned that evolution theory is about how life changed after its origin, and so we never studied the hypotheses on the origins of life in that class.
Beginning with your 9th grade biology classes, were you taught that the complex and varied life we observe today, after it's origin, was created by anything other than solely naturalistic processes?
When you previously asked if all teachings relating the origins of life were attributed to a naturalistic process, I was really extrapolating beyond whats actually been taught in my science classes that have taught evolution.
In your science classes which have taught evolution, what other impetuses were presented for the variety and complexity of life we observe today, including humanity, other than solely naturalistic mechanisms?
Based upon my experiences at the museum exhibitions regarding the origins of life and the books I've read I built a bridge in my mind between that and lessons in classes and wrote my response. I sort of feel like you manipulated my response to suit your agenda, and so Im trying to use more care now.
1) How did I manipulate your response
and
2) What is my agenda?
One chapter in my 10th grade AP Environmental Science class had a component relating to the origins of life. In the classroom we solely focused on the geophysical, the chemical, and the biological hypotheses. As mentioned previously, my teacher never discussed the supernatural while teaching natural evolution and abiogenesis but certainly didnt dissuade us from having any personal beliefs in a deity being responsible for the creation of life. There was no litmus test.
Did your 10th grade teacher teach that solely naturalistic processes were the only explanation, the only impetus needed or required for the creation of all life we observe today from the initial life form?
Were you permitted any answer on your tests which would not agree with that view?
I just looked again and the textbook does very briefly explain the Theory of Special Creation (the ones ascribed to by most world religions), Theory of Spontaneous Generation, the Theory of Catastrophism, and the Cosmozoic Theory. Its a digital textbook (on an iPad) and you can click on links to find more information if you choose. The same textbook is used at most public schools as well as at other private schools.
Yes, I'm aware there are many guesses and suppositions concerning abogenesis. This isn't about abiogenesis though, this is concerning how humanity resulted from non-humanity.
This past year I took Pharmacology and we only studied evolution in relation to pharmacological / biomedical research, like viral evolution for viral oncology. Once again we never studied the origins of life.
The issue in question isn't about the origin of life, but how humanity is the result of non-humanity.
Ive only truly been taught that, beyond just that one APES component, in the current class Im taking at UCLA. It hasnt been taught as conclusive, inconvertible fact, but was phrased as why do we think life originally evolved from non-living materials on this planet? Then we discussed how that might have occurred.
Yes, that's addressing abiogenesis, not how humanity was created from non-humanity.
Weve also learned why creationism is not a scientific alternative to evolution.
And why was that?
The word scientific is a very important qualifier. It leaves the doors to theological alternatives open for us to enter through and explore if we choose.
But this was after you've been taught that the only true worldview concerning the creation of humanity from non-humanity is by solely naturalistic means? In school, to pass your courses, you had to at least pretend to agree with the naturalistic creative process which created humanity from non-humanity?
Though I and other high schoolers have been permitted to take this class, its a class for college students and taught on UCLAs campus. Its not a requirement for any high school student, and our parents pay for the tuition. So it's not like we're "kiddos" less experienced with critical independent thinking forced into this class.
Ok.
The class at my school that devotes the most time to teaching evolution and the origins of life is AP Biology, but Im taking AP Physics this upcoming year. My brother took AP Biology at St. Albans, which is the all-boys brother school to NCS, and out of curiosity I asked him your question about atheistic creationism. It is a Christian school, and yet they use the same textbook by Pearson that we have at my school, and they taught the class from the same secular perspective as it's taught at the majority of schools whether they be public, private, parochial, online, or brick and mortar.
Would you check with your brother and find out how the issue between God being creator and the teaching that solely naturalistic processes are creator is resolved by the Christian worldview presented in the school? I'm especially interested in the answer to this.
Whereas my 7th grade teacher did share her Christian views in class, he said his science teachers at St. Albans did not. They just focused on teaching science lessons based on the most substantiated, reputable scientific evidence.
What substantiated, reputable and scientific evidence did they offer supporting the worldview that humanity was the creation from non-humanity by solely naturalistic processes? According to your brother.
He said it seems like youre making secularism, naturalism, and atheism synonymous with one another when they are not.
I'm simply questioning a specific creationist worldview, atheistic Darwinist creationism.
Going by your unique definition, St. Albans, a Christian school that is on the same grounds at the THE National Cathedral, is teaching atheism by teaching evolution and hypotheses on the origins of life the way we're taught it at my school (i.e., solely naturalistic), when they most assuredly are not.
If St. Albans, or any other school, be it Christian or non-Christian, teaches that humanity is the creation from non-humanity from solely naturalistic mechanisms, then atheistic creationism is being taught. This is why I question how a theistic creationist worldview of the creation of humanity by God could be reconciled with the creationist viewpoint that humanity was created from non-humanity by solely naturalistic mechanisms.
They just teach science in science classes, theology in religion classes, and humanity in history and philosophy classes. I dont know how familiar you are with AP classes, but they are college-level classes you take in high school, and at the end of the year everyone takes a standardized exam to potentially earn college credit based on your score. The College Board suggests the curriculum for the classes. I have friends at NCS, at Episcopal and Catholic schools here in LA, and at public schools who've taken the same AP classes I have and my brother has, and the classes are taught similarly. It's quite possible that people have disagreed with the material taught in their AP and other science classes. The AP exam and the majority of other tests aren't about an affirmation of agreement but a demonstration of mastery of the material that was taught. I mean, in my World Religions class I had tests relating to Islamic doctrine, Jainism, Buddhism, and so forth, and the tests were not about me believing in those religions but in showing that I learned what was taught. Simple as that.
Wouldn't you have to agree with the viewpoint that humanity was created from non-humanity by solely naturalistic mechanisms in order to pass your tests?
We've never specifically, directly studied the creation of humanity in any science class besides the discussions based on the Smithsonian material in the 7th grade.
The question of how all life was created from an original life form was never addressed in your science classes?
As explained above, we've studied hypotheses about the origins of life - not humanity - in some classes and then how humans evolved and are still evolving in others, but it hasn't been one flowing study about the origin of humanity in my classes so far.
The issue isn't about abiogenesis. This is about what you were taught about humanity being created from non-humanity. Or how all life we observe today is the result of only, solely, naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.
Nope. My teachers and my current professor have stated that there is so much about the origins of life that scientists do not conclusively know, so there are mannnnnnnnnny open questions.
This particular issue isn't about abiogenesis.
The evidence about the evolution of life after its inception is substantial, but our knowledge of it will continue to evolve.
Yes, what were you taught concerning what created humanity from non-humanity after the inception of life? Anything other than solely naturalistic mechanisms?
Theyve said that the mechanism by which life began on Earth isnt known; its hypothesized.
This isn't about abiogenesis.
My dad is an oncologist and has said that though they have made significant strides in understanding the 200+ diseases that are cancer in modern medicine, so much of it still unknown, which the primary reason a cure has remained elusive. If the best and the brightest doctors and researches around the world are unable to conclusively know everything about cancer because of its complexity, its understandable to me there arent categorical answers about the origins of life. "We don't know, but this is what we think / believe based on this evidence" is more honest to me than a claim about an incontrovertible scientific truth that lacks the scientific evidence to substantiate it.
This isn't about abiogenesis.
I believe most science classes do rely upon scientific evidence. I know that college professors review the textbooks most frequently used in the high school classes of their applicants and students to assess their quality and assure we've received the necessary preparation for those subjects at the college level. If parents or students feel like their education is lacking they can take the initiative to add supplementary lessons at home.
As many parents do. One of the issues is with the fact that only one creationist worldview is allowed in our public schools.
I've read about theistic evolution on my own just by checking out Dr. Collins books and getting suggestions for others on Goodreads. I don't want or need it to be taught at school.
Me either.
Im about to fall asleep now but if youre interested I can share with you a bit later on about two friends whove taken science classes based on A Beka and Apologia textbooks and then explain why their experiences have made me so grateful I am taking straightforward, uncluttered, evidence-based science classes. I like that what I've been taught in my science classes matches up with what is taught in the natural history museums we've been to around the world, regardless of the dominant religious and political ideologies of the country where they're located.
Sure, share it when you get the time.
OK. So now that I've hopefully answered your questions sufficiently,
I appreciate the time you've taken in the response, but as you have seen, I've had a few more questions.
I have a question for you! If YOU were in charge of setting standards for science education in high schools what would you want to be taught, and why?
Teach science by all means, but don't teach creationism disguised as science.
Could you please just give a clear explanation without doublespeak? Im sorry if this is a repetitive question. I havent read through all the threads and posts here. And my gosh, Im sorry this post is so absurdly long and rambly. Peeps, my apologies for your sore eyes and for taking up so much space. I am sunburned and cant sleep so I just typed away. Oh geez. If anyone actually reads all of this, thank youuuuu. Oh, and I hope this actually made sense and isn't riddled with typos. It's after 3AM here and my brain started to fall asleep an hour ago.
Again, thank you for your response.
