How were you taught Evolution?

[justlookinla]

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.

We'll certainly determine what exactly they were teaching if we can simply dialog.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

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.

Actually it was swolf who constitutes that one vote. Just refuses to vote because he thinks the questions are unfair. The fact is he knows that there is no way he can demonstrate an actual metaphysical stance being taught in science class so he is forced to insist that the atheist metaphysic is implied, something which is conveniently vague. And of course the fact that numerous Christians have explicitly stated that the wiki definition of Darwinism fits with their faith and what they were taught in Christian schools doesn't keep him from repeating that said definition is inherently atheistic.

 

[bhsmte]

I sense the desperation levels increasing.

 

[SnowyMacie]

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)

Correct. We were simply presented that evolution happened, and the facts of what happened.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

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.

Thanks for the response. I see that Just has given you the same fallacious question he has repeated ad nauseum no matter what any Christian member says to him. He asks his question as if his premise were already agreed upon, which of course it isn't. With that in mind, can you tell me if this (admittedly limitted) definition fits with what you were taught in your Christian university?:

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."

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.

Either I'm misunderstanding your response or you misinterpreted this question. I agree of course that both an atheistic and theistic metaphysic are beyond the scope of science classes. But what I meant to ask was whether you think that not explicitly stating that God was involved in the process should be construed as saying that He wasn't.

 

[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.

Thanks for the response. I see that Just has given you the same fallacious question he has repeated ad nauseum no matter what any Christian member says to him. He asks his question as if his premise were already agreed upon, which of course it isn't. With that in mind, can you tell me if this (admittedly limitted) definition fits with what you were taught in your Christian university?:

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."

Yes, let's reconcile the issue. You see, you leading and misleading questions in the poll are being exposed.

Either I'm misunderstanding your response or you misinterpreted this question. I agree of course that both an atheistic and theistic metaphysic are beyond the scope of science classes. But what I meant to ask was whether you think that not explicitly stating that God was involved in the process should be construed as saying that He wasn't.

Yep, you're attempting to stay with the leading and misleading question. The issue is concerning how sufficient only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms are in creating humanity from non-humanity, for creating all life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

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)

Correct. We were simply presented that evolution happened, and the facts of what happened.

Which is correct, that you class did or did not teach that naturalistic mechanisms were the cause, and sufficient for, all of life we observe today?(Not abiogenesis).

There are two possible answers....

1) Your class did teach that naturalistic mechanisms were the cause, and sufficient for, all of life we observe today. (Not abiogenesis)

2) Your class did not teach that naturalistic mechanisms were the cause, and sufficient for, all of life we observe today. (Not abiogenesis)

 

[Atheos canadensis]

We'll certainly determine what exactly they were teaching if we can simply dialog.

But it doesn't seem like you really want a dialogue, you just want him to change his answer to the one you want. Again, he said that the wiki definition aligned with what he learned in Catholic school. This refutes your premise that said definition is atheistic and therefore you refuse to accept that answer, so you just keep asking him if he was taught that humans are the result of solely natural processes. But you are conflating that atheistic notion with the actual definition you posted.

 

[justlookinla]

I sense the desperation levels increasing.

Me too!!

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Yes, let's reconcile the issue. You see, you leading and misleading questions in the poll are being exposed.



Yep, you're attempting to stay with the leading and misleading question. The issue is concerning how sufficient only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms are in creating humanity from non-humanity, for creating all life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago.

Actually, as the originator of this thread, I can tell you that the issue is whether atheistic creationism is being taught in schools. The question of whether we arose without God is not being discussed.

 

[justlookinla]

But it doesn't seem like you really want a dialogue, you just want him to change his answer to the one you want. Again, he said that the wiki definition aligned with what he learned in Catholic school. This refutes your premise that said definition is atheistic and therefore you refuse to accept that answer, so you just keep asking him if he was taught that humans are the result of solely natural processes. But you are conflating that atheistic notion with the actual definition you posted.

I'm attempting to understand his answer as it relates to the source and sufficiency of naturalistic mechanisms to produce all of life we observe today, including humanity. (Not abiogenesis)

 

[SnowyMacie]

Thanks for the response. I see that Just has given you the same fallacious question he has repeated ad nauseum no matter what any Christian member says to him. He asks his question as if his premise were already agreed upon, which of course it isn't. With that in mind, can you tell me if this (admittedly limitted) definition fits with what you were taught in your Christian university?:

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."

Yes.

Either I'm misunderstanding your response or you misinterpreted this question. I agree of course that both an atheistic and theistic metaphysic are beyond the scope of science classes. But what I meant to ask was whether you think that not explicitly stating that God was involved in the process should be construed as saying that He wasn't.

No, I don't think it should be construed as that. I do think that quite often it does get interpreted as that just from evolution's subject matter as opposed to the laws of physics. I think our professor was very tenacious about and persistently reminding about how the question of it's not science to say God was or was not involved in evolution. As I said, he did imply that he believed God was involved, but he was expressing his personal beliefs and not presenting that as scientific knowledge.

 

[justlookinla]

Actually, as the originator of this thread, I can tell you that the issue is whether atheistic creationism is being taught in schools. The question of whether we arose without God is not being discussed.

The question is, what impetus for the creation of all life is being presented? Entirely, only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms or something else?

Your questions were leading and misleading, as all can now plainly see.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Which is correct, that you class did or did not teach that naturalistic mechanisms were the cause, and sufficient for, all of life we observe today?(Not abiogenesis).

There are two possible answers....

1) Your class did teach that naturalistic mechanisms were the cause, and sufficient for, all of life we observe today. (Not abiogenesis)

2) Your class did not teach that naturalistic mechanisms were the cause, and sufficient for, all of life we observe today. (Not abiogenesis)

There's a third possible answer: We were just presented with the facts of what evolution is and what happened, I don't understand how I could be more clear about that.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The question is, what impetus for the creation of all life is being presented? Entirely, only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms or something else?

Your questions were leading and misleading, as all can now plainly see.

If all can plainly see it, why is it only you who has voiced this opinion? There are a whole bunch of Christian respondents who don't agree with you.

And I have followed up by explicitly asking people if your allegedly atheistic definition of Darwinism was taught in their Christian schools. They've all said yes. That destroys your objection that the questions were misleading and providing the wrong impression. Their responses show that atheism isn't being taught explicitly or implicitly. just because you don't like that answer doesn't change that.

 

[bhsmte]

If all can plainly see it, why is it only you who has voiced this opinion? There are a whole bunch of Christian respondents who don't agree with you.

And I have followed up by explicitly asking people if your allegedly atheistic definition of Darwinism was taught in their Christian schools. They've all said yes. That destroys your objection that the questions were misleading and providing the wrong impression. Their responses show that atheism isn't being taught explicitly or implicitly. just because you don't like that answer doesn't change that.

Thats a shocker!

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Yes.

As I suspected (two other Christian-educated people have given the same answer). Would you agree that this disproves Just's desperately-maintained belief that the definition I posted is inherently atheistic?

No, I don't think it should be construed as that. I do think that quite often it does get interpreted as that just from evolution's subject matter as opposed to the laws of physics. I think our professor was very tenacious about and persistently reminding about how the question of it's not science to say God was or was not involved in evolution. As I said, he did imply that he believed God was involved, but he was expressing his personal beliefs and not presenting that as scientific knowledge.

Thanks.

 

[justlookinla]

There's a third possible answer: We were just presented with the facts of what evolution is and what happened, I don't understand how I could be more clear about that.

Are you saying that this was, or was not, taught.....

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. "​

There were no conclusions in your class that naturalistic mechanisms were the impetuses behind the creation of all of life we observe today? And that they were not totally sufficient in and of themselves as the driving force behind Darwinist evolution? (Not abiogenesis).

What other impetuses were provided other than entirely naturalistic impetuses, if any?

 

[justlookinla]

As I suspected (two other Christian-educated people have given the same answer). Would you agree that this disproves Just's desperately-maintained belief that the definition I posted is inherently atheistic?




Thanks.

Oh...wait....we haven't heard the last from this. Be patient because we both know what's coming.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Thats a shocker!

I'm so glad not to be him right now. From the very beginning of this thread he has been proven wrong and it's only gotten worse for him with more voters. And now that people are explicitly stating that the definition of Darwinism he posted aligns with their Christian school lessons, he is in even worse shape! He understands that this refutes his notion that evolution is inherently atheistic, so he just keeps asking them the same question over and over in the desperate hope that they'll change their answer.