How were you taught Evolution?

[Atheos canadensis]

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.

It is entirely pertinent. That is not a legitimate excuse to back down yet again. I started this thread to discuss the teaching of evolution in schools. What I and many others have told you is that only the science is being taught in science classes. The fact that you think science lessons should mention "other impetuses" besides natural ones makes your answer to that question very pertinent indeed. So yet again, a scientific theory by definition cannot contain reference to supernatural forces. True or False?

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?

The part where other creative mechanisms aren't allowed. Supernatural mechanisms aren't allowed to be taught as science, that doesn't mean the possibility of their existence is precluded.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

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!

Would you mind sharing the way in which you were explicitly taught that God was not involved in evolution? And to clarify your position, do you believe in evolution at all or do you believe in a literal six day creation?

 

[justlookinla]

It is entirely pertinent. That is not a legitimate excuse to back down yet again. I started this thread to discuss the teaching of evolution in schools. What I and many others have told you is that only the science is being taught in science classes. The fact that you think science lessons should mention "other impetuses" besides natural ones makes your answer to that question very pertinent indeed. So yet again, a scientific theory by definition cannot contain reference to supernatural forces. True or False?

Nope, I've said repeatedly that no creationist worldview should be taught in schools.

The part where other creative mechanisms aren't allowed. Supernatural mechanisms aren't allowed to be taught as science, that doesn't mean the possibility of their existence is precluded.

No, that's not what the statement says. Again.....

"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"​

The question was concerning the worldview that naturalistic processes were presented as the sole creative mechanisms needed....or allowed.....and adequate....for the explanation of all life we observe today.

1) Why would naturalistic processes be presented as the sole mechanism needed for the creation of all life, including humanity.

2) Why would naturalistic processes be presented as the sole process allowed for the creation of all life, including humanity?

3) Why would naturalistic processes be presented as the sole process which is adequate for the creation of all life, including humanity?

Scientific theory definition isn't addressing those issues.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Nope, I've said repeatedly that no creationist worldview should be taught in schools.

You said this: "And changing this....""all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations"...to this...'all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection, guided by other impetuses, of small, inherited variations'....isn't allowed or permitted."

This implies that you think those other impetuses should be added to the lesson. If not, why? Is it because you are aware that a scientific theory should not discusses supernatural forces?

The question was concerning the worldview that naturalistic processes were presented as the sole creative mechanisms needed....or allowed.....and adequate....for the explanation of all life we observe today.

1) Why would naturalistic processes be presented as the sole mechanism needed for the creation of all life, including humanity.

2) Why would naturalistic processes be presented as the sole process allowed for the creation of all life, including humanity?

3) Why would naturalistic processes be presented as the sole process which is adequate for the creation of all life, including humanity?

Scientific theory definition isn't addressing those issues.

What was your point here? In any case, at this point I think we can the fact that you keep backing down from this question as a concession that you are aware that a scientific theory should not be discussing supernatural influence.

No, that's not what the statement says. Again.....

"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"​

That's your personal mantra, not the theory taught in schools as we have heard from several sources now.

 

[bhsmte]

You said this: "And changing this....""all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations"...to this...'all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection, guided by other impetuses, of small, inherited variations'....isn't allowed or permitted."

This implies that you think those other impetuses should be added to the lesson. If not, why? Is it because you are aware that a scientific theory should not discusses supernatural forces?



What was your point here? In any case, at this point I think we can the fact that you keep backing down from this question as a concession that you are aware that a scientific theory should not be discussing supernatural influence.



That's your personal mantra, not the theory taught in schools as we have heard from several sources now.

Chalk it up to this:

Fundies have to convince themselves of the craziest things.

And they do try hard, don't they?

 

[justlookinla]

You said this: "And changing this....""all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations"...to this...'all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection, guided by other impetuses, of small, inherited variations'....isn't allowed or permitted."

This implies that you think those other impetuses should be added to the lesson. If not, why? Is it because you are aware that a scientific theory should not discusses supernatural forces?

Those who do not embrace the first statement modify it by the second statement.

What was your point here?

The point is what the point has always been....atheistic creationism.

In any case, at this point I think we can the fact that you keep backing down from this question as a concession that you are aware that a scientific theory should not be discussing supernatural influence.

It's not about a scientific theory discussing supernatural influence, it's about the particular creationist view that all life is solely and completely attributable to the process of naturalistic mechanisms which are completely adequate for the creation process. No other impetus is needed, other than naturalistic mechanisms, for the creation of humanity in this creationist worldview.

That's your personal mantra, not the theory taught in schools as we have heard from several sources now.

Would you answer the questions or at least identify which of these aren't part of the creationist worldview taught in schools today?

1) Why would naturalistic processes be presented as the sole mechanism needed for the creation of all life, including humanity.

2) Why would naturalistic processes be presented as the sole process allowed for the creation of all life, including humanity?

3) Why would naturalistic processes be presented as the sole process which is adequate for the creation of all life, including humanity?

 

[justlookinla]

Chalk it up to this:

Fundies have to convince themselves of the craziest things.

And they do try hard, don't they?

Here's a doozy for you. Billions of random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless processes were the source of your creation from a worm.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Hey Artemis, would you mind responding to

Apologies for the delayed response. I'm just now reading this post. I had to remove your URL links from your quoted posts because of an error message that popped up informing me that my post count isn't high enough to have links.

FOR EVERYONE TAUGHT IN RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS

Instead of making another poll, hopefully you and other people with experience as a student or teacher in Christian schools can just respond to this question, though I could do a poll if that's easier.

iS the following definition pulled from wikipedia what you were taught in science class?:

"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"

Obviously it is a basic definition and doesn't mention things like gene flow and genetic drift, but aside from that do people find it to be the same concept they were taught?

Yes. We have learned that the central unifying theme of biology is evolution, and that natural selection is the mechanism for evolution. This is the basic foundation of what my brother was taught at his Christian school as well. He's a human biology major planning on going into medicine, so my knowledge about evolution is like thimble sized in comparison to his, but he said several of his classes were similar to mine and that he received a solid preparation at St. Albans.

Speaking of Wikipedia, its entry on atheistic evolution showed up in the search when I Googled "atheistic creationism" the other day. This is an excerpt from it:
"Owen Gingerich, a historian of science at Harvard University, has stated that both views (atheistic evolution and theistic evolution) are outside the domain of scientific empiricism: "Can mutations be inspired? Here is the ideological watershed, the division between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution; and frankly, it lies beyond the capability of science to prove the matter one way or the other."

I just skimmed through the threads and saw that you and JustLookInLA made other posts from my quotes. I'll try to respond to them when I can.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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)

Evolution is a pretty happily self-contained theory of biological diversity. Natural selection, etc. Yes, those mechanisms are sufficient to explain said biological diversity. In the same way that natural mechanisms are sufficient to explain gravitation, germ theory, and reproduction.

I'm a theistic evolutionist in the same way that I'm a theistic germ theorist and a theistic heliocentrist.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Here's a doozy for you. Billions of random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless processes were the source of your creation from a worm.

Worms, that is annelids, aren't in the human family tree. Our evolution descends back through chordata, and the earliest chordates likely evolved from sessile animals similar to tunicates. Though I suppose the earliest mobile chordates would have appeared worm-like. But we did not descend from worms.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kylie]

Nope, just the opposite. I'm not tampering with the definition of Darwinism, I'm only pointing out what it's teaching.

Rubbish. If you assume that there is an "only" in there when there is not, and you then put that "only" in and claim it is properly there, then you are certainly tampering with it!

How many times do I have to post the fact that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in a Godless creation?

From catholic.com.......

"Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. "​

And how many times do I have to tell you that science does not claim that there is no room for God in ANY of it!?

 

[sfs]

How do you do that without modifying the definition?

In the way I already told you twice. Have you considered reading the replies people are writing to you? By recognizing that natural processes are part of God's creation, and part of how he acts in the world. That's standard Christian theology -- why do you reject it?

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

This is the insane part. You're denying that I believe something, when I just told you that I believe it. Huh?

Yes, my statement of evolution does not include God. Why should it? "That thunderstorm gave us a lot of rain" is another statement that does not include God. Do you think Christians can't make that statement either, since the Bible says that God send the rain, and the statement doesn't mention God? My religious belief is that God is responsible for the existence of thunderstorms, just as he is responsible for evolution. I don't have to mention that belief all the time, though. "Evolution produced humans" and "that thunderstorm produced rain" are both scientifically accurate statements, and they're both statement Christians can (and do) make. You have yet to offer any reason that there should be a problem with either one.

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

It isn't about "creationism"; only you think evolution is a kind of creationism -- it's one of those things you made up. More to the point, your question assumes a couple of things that aren't true. First, it assumes that the process of small biological changes is a "naturalistic" mechanism. It isn't -- that's another thing you made up. Science deals with statements about natural processes -- processes that we can see occurring in nature -- and that's all the description of evolution includes. An atheist will consider the processes naturalistic, meaning that nothing beyond nature is involved in them, while a theist won't. The scientific statement works just fine either way; that's why atheists and theists do indistinguishable science.

Second, it confuses the ultimate origin of things with natural processes. "God created" is not another impetus on the same level as "mutations occurred". The first is a statement of ultimate causation, while the second is a statement about physical causation. They can both be true statements about the same event.

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

It leaves out "God is responsible for the existence of these processes". And it's appropriate to leave it out of a scientific statement, since my addition isn't part of science: it's part of faith. (It also leaves out all of the physical mechanisms that make up part of the theory of evolution, and the chemistry and physics that give rise to those processes. It leaves out tons of stuff.)

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

?? Why would scripture support a theory that was only discovered many centuries after the Bible was written? The Bible doesn't provide verses to support any scientific theory; that's not its job.

 

[sfs]

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

In my experience, Bible-believing fundamentalists have no problem at all giving in to their carnal lusts, so I find your explanation implausible. Also, speaking as one of those people, I think your explanation is ludicrous. It has no connection to reality. If you were really concerned about my spiritual health, you'd deal with it in a Biblical way: you'd come to me privately (which is quite possible here) and find out what I believe and why. But you're not: you're just telling everyone that I'm spiritually inferior to you. What kind of impression do you think you're making on outsiders? (You're sure not making a good impression on me.)

 

[sfs]

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.

You should try talking with real scientists sometime. You'd find out that what you've written here is wrong. Yes, there are scientists who reject evolution, just as there have always been. The number is small (as a fraction of the millions of scientists in the world), and vanishingly small among those who work in the relevant fields. The theory of evolution is one of the most robust, best tested theories of science, and is used successfully by many thousands of scientists every day. They'll continue to use it until someone offers an alternative that's remotely competitive, and that no one has been able to do.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, because an astrophysicist has intensively studied biological evolution and is qualified to comment on its validity.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Those who do not embrace the first statement modify it by the second statement.

Not the point. The point is that you implied there that you think "other impetuses" besides natural ones should be taught in science class. If this is incorrect, just say so. Do you think impetuses other than natural ones should be taught in science class?

It's not about a scientific theory discussing supernatural influence, it's about the particular creationist view that all life is solely and completely attributable to the process of naturalistic mechanisms which are completely adequate for the creation process. No other impetus is needed, other than naturalistic mechanisms, for the creation of humanity in this creationist worldview.

As always your head is shoved too far up your fallacy to understand what numerous Christians have told you. The evidence shows us that Earth's biota arose through the natural process of evolution. That natural process of evolution is indeed considered sufficient to produce our biota. What you can't seem to grasp is that it is possible to believe that the natural process of evolution could conceivably be divinely ordained and even sustained. Because scientific theories make no commnet either way on supernatural forces, there is no conflict. I would appreciate it if, instead of merely reiterating your false dichotomy, you could explain why you don't think it is reasonable to believe that we arose through natural processes ordained and sustained by God.

Would you answer the questions or at least identify which of these aren't part of the creationist worldview taught in schools today?

1) Why would naturalistic processes be presented as the sole mechanism needed for the creation of all life, including humanity.

Because if supernatural mechanisms are presented then you aren't teaching science.

2) Why would naturalistic processes be presented as the sole process allowed for the creation of all life, including humanity?

You have provided no evidence that this is the case and in fact many Christians here have explicitly stated otherwise.

3) Why would naturalistic processes be presented as the sole process which is adequate for the creation of all life, including humanity?

Again, only natural processes are pertinent to science classes.

 

[Dizredux]

Just as a casual exercise, it might be interesting to look up the term delusion on Wiki. It also might be interesting to glance at the definition section.

Delusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dizredux

 

[DerelictJunction]

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 .

This is an incorrect statement. Children in U.S. public schools are not taught this. You have been told that your statement is incorrect.
The fact that you have been requested to support your statement and refuse to do so, leads me and many others to the conclusion that you are soundly aware that it is an incorrect statement.
Yet you continue to repeat it.

You are now at the point where it is a willful lie on your part to repeat your statement that "our children are taught that they're the creation of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanism acting on past life forms."
Well, unless you can provide evidence to support it.

Just my $1/50.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hmm... today I climbed a mountain with my friend Tim.

I wonder if justlookinla assumes that I'm asserting that only Tim and in the whole world climbed a mountain today.

 

[Dizredux]

Diz

Either you don't understand the question or you are avoiding answering it.

What do you think should be taught?

Just

Science. Not creationism.

Let's try again. What do you think should be taught in science class concerning the diversity of life? Be specific. Since you do not like the way it is being taught now, don't you think you should offer an acceptable alternative? If you think nothing should be taught then discuss why you feel this way.

You are addressing what you feel to be the problem, you also need to propose a workable solution.

Dizredux