How were you taught Evolution?

[bhsmte]

Let's try that again, only this time try addressing the content of my post instead of just redundantly stating that you don't believe in an atheistic view of origins:

Desperate. You don't like the answer he gave because it proves you wrong, so you're going to keep asking him if he was taught that humans were created solely by natural processes for the billionth time. He'll say no and you'll ask him exactly the same thing again because you can't accept that you're wrong.

I asked him point blank if the posted definition was what he was taught and he said yes. You're so blinded by your utter certainty that the definition you posted is inherently atheistic that you can't accept the obvious conclusion: if Catholics are teaching that definition, it must not be inherently atheistic. Plus numerous Christians here have told you explicitly that the posted definition is in line with what they believe and still you insist that it's atheistic. What's wrong with you?

There comes a time, when the ignore feature comes in handy.

 

[justlookinla]

Let's try that again, only this time try addressing the content of my post instead of just redundantly stating that you don't believe in an atheistic view of origins:

Desperate. You don't like the answer he gave because it proves you wrong, so you're going to keep asking him if he was taught that humans were created solely by natural processes for the billionth time. He'll say no and you'll ask him exactly the same thing again because you can't accept that you're wrong.

I asked him point blank if the posted definition was what he was taught and he said yes. You're so blinded by your utter certainty that the definition you posted is inherently atheistic that you can't accept the obvious conclusion: if Catholics are teaching that definition, it must not be inherently atheistic. Plus numerous Christians here have told you explicitly that the posted definition is in line with what they believe and still you insist that it's atheistic. What's wrong with you?

And I've asked for clarification, explanation, of how they reconcile the definition of Darwinism, which is inherently atheistic, with this....

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.​

So far, I've not had anyone reconcile those opposing creationist worldviews. I'm waiting. And will continue pointing out the irreconcilable differences in the posted definition of Darwinism and John 1:3.

Sooooo.......until those issues are resolved, until an explanation is given, you'll just have to watch and wait. And maybe learn something in the meantime.

 

[justlookinla]

There comes a time, when the ignore feature comes in handy.

I win!!

 

[Shemjaza]

I win!!

Are you planning on having a golden cup on your shelf with "I annoy people till they give up on me in disgust" etched into it?

 

[bhsmte]

Are you planning on having a golden cup on your shelf with "I annoy people till they give up on me in disgust" etched into it?

Does this surprise you, considering the source?

If you can't win on intellect, you manufacture a win, in your own mind. Sort of aligns with everything else and the pattern will continue.

Very, very predictable.

 

[Dizredux]

I win!!

Well if your goal was wear down other posters by repeating the same reality challenged statements and over and refuse to listen to any differing opinions to the point where they give up on you then, I guess, you won. I am not sure just what you think you have won but it seems to have made you rather happy.

There was a quote I sometimes run into about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I can't seem to remember just what it refers to but it seems to describe your behavior well.

Dizredux

 

[ViaCrucis]

I voted "Without an affirmation or denial of God's involvement".

However evolution wasn't part of my schooling until I took biology my Sophomore year in high school. Until high school I had been a student of a conservative Christian private education (and proof that "private education" doesn't mean "better education"). As such my education on evolution came outside of an academic setting, and largely from watching educational programming on the Discovery Channel, reading books on dinosaurs and other prehistoric fauna.

God's involvement was simply a non-issue in presenting evolution and the processes of evolution, the issue was simply a matter of science. And ultimately no different than any other educational programming I watched such as how gravity works. That in being taught about how the moon orbits about the earth due to gravity there was no explicit mention of God seems like a non-issue. In the same way when I learned how sexual reproduction works, it was described in totally naturalistic terms, scientifically.

My faith in God lay in parallel with my understanding of science, there's no conflict. But neither would a lack of faith in God be in conflict with the science. Because the science itself says nothing one way or the other. Because it's science, which deals with observable phenomenon and testable hypotheses. Not possible metaphysical realities or the lack thereof, or questions of faith. It isn't the job of science to opine on the nature or existence of God, so I shouldn't expect it to do so.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[justlookinla]

Are you planning on having a golden cup on your shelf with "I annoy people till they give up on me in disgust" etched into it?

Nah, I keep this close by...not a trophy, as such, but intensely valuable....

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.​

 

[PsychoSarah]

I win!!

Not really, what would you do if everyone who disagreed with you blocked you? You'd have no one to debate with, another reason I left atheist forums.

Also, you don't win when out of 38 people, only 1 person votes for the position you support, and for all I know that was you.

 

[bhsmte]

Not really, what would you do if everyone who disagreed with you blocked you? You'd have no one to debate with, another reason I left atheist forums.

Also, you don't win when out of 38 people, only 1 person votes for the position you support, and for all I know that was you.

But, but........................................

 

[Dizredux]

Diz

What is the problem? Any Christian probably would agree with this passage but I can see no way it conflicts with the view that natural processes were put in place by God. That includes evolution.

Just

It conflicts with the view that humanity was created from non-humanity by only, totally, solely, completely naturalistic processes.

Another non sequitur. How does this address the idea that God could have put in place the natural processes that the universe uses? Somehow you appear to have pinned your self into a spot where you seem to assert that God did not do this and I am not sure if this is where you want to be. With you however, who knows?

Diz

Can you point out the problem without using the words only, totally, completely or solely?

Just

That is the problem. Creationism by only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic process acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Can't do it can you?" Can you carry on any level of discussion on this subject? I am beginning to doubt it.

Diz

An interesting challenge. I bet you can come up with a way but we shall see in your response if you are able to address the issue or will you pull up another non sequitur. Hope springs eternal.

Just

Yes, an interesting challenge, especially from the viewpoint of atheistic creationism. You, as well as the atheistic creationists on the forum, are upset with the exposure that Darwinism, as defined many time, is inherently Godless creationism. Why is it Godless? It's Godless because all of life, including humanity, is the product of solely, completely, totally, only naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Sigh. Hope did not pan out this time. Perhaps the next opportunity.

Do you understand what that means?

Yes I think I so but it is more than beginning to look like it has more to do with you than evolution.

I still have hope we can get through to you but I have to admit I am becoming frustrated at the intractability.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Not really, what would you do if everyone who disagreed with you blocked you? You'd have no one to debate with, another reason I left atheist forums.

Also, you don't win when out of 38 people, only 1 person votes for the position you support, and for all I know that was you.

You still haven't understood about the leading and misleading questions, thus your comment.

 

[justlookinla]

I voted "Without an affirmation or denial of God's involvement".

However evolution wasn't part of my schooling until I took biology my Sophomore year in high school. Until high school I had been a student of a conservative Christian private education (and proof that "private education" doesn't mean "better education"). As such my education on evolution came outside of an academic setting, and largely from watching educational programming on the Discovery Channel, reading books on dinosaurs and other prehistoric fauna.

God's involvement was simply a non-issue in presenting evolution and the processes of evolution, the issue was simply a matter of science. And ultimately no different than any other educational programming I watched such as how gravity works. That in being taught about how the moon orbits about the earth due to gravity there was no explicit mention of God seems like a non-issue. In the same way when I learned how sexual reproduction works, it was described in totally naturalistic terms, scientifically.

My faith in God lay in parallel with my understanding of science, there's no conflict. But neither would a lack of faith in God be in conflict with the science. Because the science itself says nothing one way or the other. Because it's science, which deals with observable phenomenon and testable hypotheses. Not possible metaphysical realities or the lack thereof, or questions of faith. It isn't the job of science to opine on the nature or existence of God, so I shouldn't expect it to do so.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for your response. I have a couple of simple questions.

1) Was the view taught that only, completely, solely, totally naturalistic mechanisms were sufficient, and the reason, for all of life we observe today? (Not abiogenesis)

2) If not, what impetus was taught as sufficient, and the reason, for all of life we observe today? (Not abiogenesis)

 

[justlookinla]

But, but........................................

But, but..............................the questions are leading and misleading.

 

[SnowyMacie]

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?

I wasn't taught evolution in high school, but in college it was taught from the third angle. I go to a Christian university and was taught evolution as scientific fact, and that it is technically outside the realm of science to say God was or was not involved in evolution, even though our professor believed God was involved.

Followup question: Yes. I think they're both venturing outside the realm of science. I have no problem with people believing either one, most scientists and people have a personal opinion on the matter, but there's nothing wrong with that as long as neither tries to present itself as a or the scientific viewpoint.

 

[justlookinla]

Diz

Just Another non sequitur. How does this address the idea that God could have put in place the natural processes that the universe uses? Somehow you appear to have pinned your self into a spot where you seem to assert that God did not do this and I am not sure if this is where you want to be. With you however, who knows?

LOL. You keep trying to change the focus from the issue at hand, namely, atheistic creationism. This isn't about God's ability, this is about the atheistic creationist viewpoint inherent in Darwinism.

DizJust Can't do it can you?" Can you carry on any level of discussion on this subject? I am beginning to doubt it.

Can you address the issue?

DizJustSigh. Hope did not pan out this time. Perhaps the next opportunity.

No, your tactics will not pan out next time either. Sorry (well not really).

Yes I think I so but it is more than beginning to look like it has more to do with you than evolution.

It has to do with creationism. It'd be nice if you kept up.

I still have hope we can get through to you but I have to admit I am becoming frustrated at the intractability.

Dizredux

You're getting frustrated at your failure to change the focus from atheistic creationism to something else? Who woulda thunk it?

 

[justlookinla]

I wasn't taught evolution in high school, but in college it was taught from the third angle. I go to a Christian university and was taught evolution as scientific fact, and that it is technically outside the realm of science to say God was or was not involved in evolution, even though our professor believed God was involved.

Followup question: Yes. I think they're both venturing outside the realm of science. I have no problem with people believing either one, most scientists and people have a personal opinion on the matter, but there's nothing wrong with that as long as neither tries to present itself as a or the scientific viewpoint.

1) In your courses in evolution, was it taught that only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms were sufficient, and the cause, for all life we observe today? (Not abiogenesis)

2 ) If not, what other impetuses, other than entirely, totally, only, solely naturalistic mechanisms, were taught which created humanity from non-humanity? (Not abiogenesis)

Thanks.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

And I've asked for clarification, explanation, of how they reconcile the definition of Darwinism, which is inherently atheistic, with this....

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.​

So far, I've not had anyone reconcile those opposing creationist worldviews. I'm waiting. And will continue pointing out the irreconcilable differences in the posted definition of Darwinism and John 1:3.

Sooooo.......until those issues are resolved, until an explanation is given, you'll just have to watch and wait. And maybe learn something in the meantime.

How convenient that you've given yourself permission to avoid a substantive response. What's laughable is that the reason you've given is an obvious logical fallacy. Your premise that the wiki definition is inherently atheistic remains not only unproven but disproven. But you're acting as if that premise is agreed upon to make your argument. You understand that begging the question is a fallacious way to argue, right?

And of course when Quatona responds to say yet again that the posted definition is what he was taught in Catholic school, you will simply reiterate that he must be wrong because they wouldn't teach an atheistic theory of creation. Your head is shoved so far up your logical fallacy that you can't seem to grasp the obvious conclusion: Yes the Jesuits were teaching that definition, no they weren't teaching atheistic creationism, therefore the former is not the latter.

 

[SnowyMacie]

1) In your courses in evolution, was it taught that only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms were sufficient and the reason for all life we observe today? (Not abiogenesis)

2 ) If not, what other impetuses, other than entirely, totally, only, solely naturalistic mechanisms, were taught which created humanity from non-humanity?

Thanks.

To be honest, I don't remember my professor getting into that question. We were simply presenting with the facts, without really getting too much into the philosophy of science. We were taught that evolution happened, and that Creationism is pseudoscience, but we really didn't get into the question of "Could this happen from purely naturalistic mechanisms...". As I said, it was implied that God was still the creator and somehow was behind the scenes, but that had to do more with the setting of being at my university and being taught by Christian professors rather than the course content itself.

 

[justlookinla]

To be honest, I don't remember my professor getting into that question. We were simply presenting with the facts, without really getting too much into the philosophy of science. We were taught that evolution happened, and that Creationism is pseudoscience, but we really didn't get into the question of "Could this happen from purely naturalistic mechanisms...". As I said, it was implied that God was still the creator and somehow was behind the scenes, but that had to do more with the setting of being at my university and being taught by Christian professors rather than the course content itself.

Are you saying, and I'm asking to understand, that your class did nor did not teach that naturalistic mechanisms were the cause and sufficient for all of life we observe today? (Not abiogenesis)