How were you taught Evolution?

[sfs]

Whether you believe the bible or not, the scripture represents a 6 day, 24 hours each, creation week. It is what we base our work week on. There is no reason for any Christians to believe otherwise unless they are trying to compromise the scriptures.

Whether you're aware of it or not, lots of Christians didn't think the Bible represented creation as literal days even before evolution was thought of. Augustine didn't, for example.

Also, the reason that Christians believe otherwise is because "they are trying to compromise the scriptures"? I suppose that's the kind of slogan you've been taught, but do you realize how utterly bizarre that idea is? People believe things because they think they're true (mostly, though some people seem to be able to believe things just because they want to). What would be the point of believing something simply to undermine some other belief? And why on earth would Christians have any vested interest in undermining scripture? I have zero interest in "compromising the scriptures"; I think the world was not created in six days because the evidence in the world is overwhelmingly against that belief.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

And why on earth would Christians have any vested interest in undermining scripture?

Because it makes it easier to fall in with your carnal lusts, by denying the word that God clearly laid out for you.

 

[justlookinla]

Because if it mentioned forces other than natural, scientifically explorable forces, you would no longer be teaching a scientific theory. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that a scientific theory by definition cannot posit supernatural influence? By its very nature a scientific theory cannot discuss forces that cannot be investigated scientifically.

I understand that our children are taught that they're the creation of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanism acting on past life forms. I understand that our children are taught there is nothing else needed for their creation other than naturalistic mechanisms. I understand the conclusion from this is that a worldview of atheistic creationism which is taught our children. I understand, as we can see here, no questioning of the sufficiency or the power of naturalistic mechanisms is allowed. I understand unless our children embrace, or pretend to embrace, that Godless theory of creationism, they will not pass the course.

This is a simple question and your refusal to answer it directly indicates that you understand the point and the problem it causes for your premise. Come on. Is the same message conveyed by stating the natural processes by which we were created as by stating that only those processes exist?

The message conveyed is that you and I are solely, only, completely, totally creations by naturalistic processes. Stating the natural processes, then attributing them to the creation of you and I and the children they're teaching is atheistic creationism.

Indeed. Only natural mechanisms are being taught because only natural mechanisms are in the purview of science classes. Including supernatural impetuses in the lesson would remove it from the realm of science. Do you understand this?

Do you understand a creationist worldview of all life, including humanity, is being presented as fact in that scenario?

Whatever. It's a pipe dream either way, and an unnecessary one: all Christian posters here (excluding YECs like ED) have averred that the theory they were taught in their evil atheist science classes did not conflict with their faith. Doesn't seem like the children are in danger.

When children are taught they're the result of only, completely, totally, solely, naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago, they are in danger. The atheistic agenda wishes to control them, force them to their Godless worldview.

Of course there's danger in atheistic creationism.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

The atheistic agenda wishes to control them, force them to their Godless worldview.

Amen!

Atheists are slowly sneaking their way into our culture and trying to take the freedoms God bestowed us with, looking to supplant our education and brainwash our children. I'd call them leeches, but even leeches praise their creator!

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I understand that our children are taught that they're the creation of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanism acting on past life forms. I understand that our children are taught there is nothing else needed for their creation other than naturalistic mechanisms. I understand the conclusion from this is that a worldview of atheistic creationism which is taught our children. I understand, as we can see here, no questioning of the sufficiency or the power of naturalistic mechanisms is allowed. I understand unless our children embrace, or pretend to embrace, that Godless theory of creationism, they will not pass the course.

Cute. But do you understand that a scientific theory by definition cannot comment on supernatural forces?

The message conveyed is that you and I are solely, only, completely, totally creations by naturalistic processes. Stating the natural processes, then attributing them to the creation of you and I and the children they're teaching is atheistic creationism.

And yet another clumsy evasion of providing a direct answer. Is there a difference between stating the natural processes by which we were created as by stating that only those processes exist?

Do you understand a creationist worldview of all life, including humanity, is being presented as fact in that scenario?

Why do you refuse to answer this question? Do you understand that scientific theories cannot comment on supernatural influences?

When children are taught they're the result of only, completely, totally, solely, naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago, they are in danger. The atheistic agenda wishes to control them, force them to their Godless worldview.

Of course there's danger in atheistic creationism.

That sounds like your problem from where I'm sitting.

 

[justlookinla]

Then you're doing a spectacularly bad job of it. I'm not interested in your anti-atheist crusade. I'm interested in reconciling the viewpoint that "all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations" with Christianity, and I have no trouble doing that.

How do you do that without modifying the definition?

Do you acknowledge that there are Christians who believe in God as creator and who also believe all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations? Because it's clearly true.

Not unless the statement is modified to include God. Aren't you including God where the statement doesn't include God.

Quite true. Creative powers, on the other hand, aren't musical instruments or edible. Lots of things aren't other things. Why this should interest me is not obvious.

Since this is concerning creationism, why not list the creative impetuses other than naturalistic mechanisms. Per scripture.

It also eliminates lots of impetuses for "creation" (that is, for the creation of diversity) that are explicitly part of the theory. So what? Where did you get the bizarre idea that a brief statement of a scientific theory should state everything possible that people might believe about it? Your argument here seems truly insane.

What does it leave out? What's missing? What would you add to the statement to have it agree with your viewpoint?

No, I'm sorry, but you're clearly not interested in understanding how I reconcile them. If you were, you would pay some slight attention to what I write about precisely that subject, rather than simply trying to define my views out of existence.

Just as a favor, how about posting a scripture which supports the statement as it reads, without modification.

 

[justlookinla]

Cute. But do you understand that a scientific theory by definition cannot comment on supernatural forces?

Do you understand creation without God is atheistic creationism?

And yet another clumsy evasion of providing a direct answer. Is there a difference between stating the natural processes by which we were created as by stating that only those processes exist?

I've answered the question several times now.

Why do you refuse to answer this question? Do you understand that scientific theories cannot comment on supernatural influences?

I understand that a creationist worldview is being presented. The only one allowed in schools.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Do you understand creation without God is atheistic creationism?



I've answered the question several times now.



I understand that a creationist worldview is being presented. The only one allowed in schools.

Yes yes, I know that's what you think. Please provide a direct answer this time.

A scientific theory by definition cannot contain reference to supernatural forces. True or False?

 

[crazyforgod1212]

Yes yes, I know that's what you think. Please provide a direct answer this time.

A scientific theory by definition cannot contain reference to supernatural forces. True or False?

Why are we talking about theories? Evolution isn't even really one. It's a hypothesis, and a failed one at that. Scientists are abandoning it in droves.

And this list is growing all the time.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes yes, I know that's what you think. Please provide a direct answer this time.

A scientific theory by definition cannot contain reference to supernatural forces. True or False?

Nope, let's talk about the adequacy of only, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms to create humanity from non-humanity and the fact this is the exclusive creationist viewpoint allowed in our schools.

Should our children be taught that no other impetus is needed, or allowed, for their existence other than only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Nope, let's talk about the adequacy of only, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms to create humanity from non-humanity and the fact this is the exclusive creationist viewpoint allowed in our schools.

Should our children be taught that no other impetus is needed, or allowed, for their existence other than only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

No, they should not. They should merely be taught the natural mechanisms in science class, not supernatural mechanisms. Why so afraid to answer a simple question? A scientific theory by definition cannot contain reference to supernatural forces. True or False?

It isn't a trick question. You know the what a scientific theory is. Which is why you can't bring yourself to give a straight answer.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Amen!

Atheists are slowly sneaking their way into our culture and trying to take the freedoms God bestowed us with, looking to supplant our education and brainwash our children. I'd call them leeches, but even leeches praise their creator!

This is normally in my signature: Differences between faith and politics are not a reason for discord and distrust.

Imagine how you would feel as an atheist who lived in a society where your children were being brainwashed to believe in things you were against.

 

[justlookinla]

No, they should not. They should merely be taught the natural mechanisms in science class, not supernatural mechanisms. Why so afraid to answer a simple question? A scientific theory by definition cannot contain reference to supernatural forces. True or False?

It isn't a trick question. You know the what a scientific theory is. Which is why you can't bring yourself to give a straight answer.

Sure, I know what a scientific theory is, but the issue isn't the definition of a scientific theory, the issue is what's it's been from the beginning.....the single creationist theory taught in our schools, atheistic creationism.

Why would the teaching that naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago is the sole creative mechanism needed or allowed and adequate for explanation of all of life we observe today?

 

[justlookinla]

This is normally in my signature: Differences between faith and politics are not a reason for discord and distrust.

Imagine how you would feel as an atheist who lived in a society where your children were being brainwashed to believe in things you were against.

I'd feel the same way that I feel about children being brainwashed by the one creationist view allowed in our schools today, atheistic creationism.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Sure, I know what a scientific theory is, but the issue isn't the definition of a scientific theory, the issue is what's it's been from the beginning.....the single creationist theory taught in our schools, atheistic creationism.

Apparently the definition of a scientific theory is an issue, because you don't seem to understand why a scientific theory does not discuss supernatural forces. You refuse to acknowledge (despite the fact the it is obvious we both know it) that a scientific theory cannot, by definition, mention supernatural forces.

Why would the teaching that naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago is the sole creative mechanism needed or allowed and adequate for explanation of all of life we observe today?

Why would it what?

 

[SnowyMacie]

Sure, I know what a scientific theory is, but the issue isn't the definition of a scientific theory, the issue is what's it's been from the beginning.....the single creationist theory taught in our schools, atheistic creationism.

Why would the teaching that naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago is the sole creative mechanism needed or allowed and adequate for explanation of all of life we observe today?

Let me introduce you to my friend Elsa...

 

[justlookinla]

Apparently the definition of a scientific theory is an issue, because you don't seem to understand why a scientific theory does not discuss supernatural forces. You refuse to acknowledge (despite the fact the it is obvious we both know it) that a scientific theory cannot, by definition, mention supernatural forces.

Why would a worldview be taught that the only impetus needed, the only impetus proven, the only impetus allowed for the creation of humanity from non-humanity, for the creation of all life from a single life form from long long ago be taught in our schools? Why that particular creationist viewpoint?

Why would it what?

Why would the teaching be permitted in our schools that naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form form long long ago were the sole creative mechanisms needed or allowed and adequate for explanation of all life we observe today?

 

[justlookinla]

Let it go? Not gonna happen.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Why would a worldview be taught that the only impetus needed, the only impetus proven, the only impetus allowed for the creation of humanity from non-humanity, for the creation of all life from a single life form from long long ago be taught in our schools? Why that particular creationist viewpoint?



Why would the teaching be permitted in our schools that naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form form long long ago were the sole creative mechanisms needed or allowed and adequate for explanation of all life we observe today?

It isn't what's being taught, as numerous religiously and secularly-educated people here have told you.

Now again, a scientific theory by definition cannot contain reference to supernatural forces. True or False? I'm astounded that you seem willing to back down again and again on this question.

 

[justlookinla]

It isn't what's being taught, as numerous religiously and secularly-educated people here have told you.

Now again, a scientific theory by definition cannot contain reference to supernatural forces. True or False? I'm astounded that you seem willing to back down again and again on this question.

No, the question isn't pertinent to what's taught in our schools as the impetus for the creation of all life, including humanity. Let's continue examining what's taught concerning the impetus for the creation of all of life, including humanity.

I'm surprised that you would disagree that the following is not being taught......

naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form form long long ago were the sole creative mechanisms needed or allowed and adequate for explanation of all life we observe today​

What part isn't taught in schools?