How were you taught Evolution?

[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?

What is being taught in science class is a single creation worldview. The smokescreen of 'we can only teach science in a science class' doesn't hide the conclusion of this 'science' is actually a creationist view that all of life we observe today is the completely, totally, only, solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. Your leading, and misleading, questions concerning God being mentioned or not mentioned thereby suggesting a neutral position concerning creation is a false conclusion. It's not neutral. The creationist worldview taught doesn't mention God, but it does teach, covertly, that God isn't needed. Isn't required. The only thing that is responsible for non-humanity becoming humanity are naturalistic mechanisms. They're adequate, proven and the only answer allowed for non-humanity becoming humanity.

This the the issue you're not dealing with.

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.

Of course it does, according to the 'science' being taught to our children. Nothing is needed for humanity to be created from a single life form of long long ago other than naturalistic mechanisms. There is no other creative process proven except for one....naturalistic mechanisms.

Deal with the issue.

 

[MuchWiser]

There is no other creative process proven except for one....naturalistic mechanisms.

How are we going to tell the students God did it if we can not explain to them how magic works? do you know?
What do we say when a student asks 'how'?

 

[RickG]

What is being taught in science class is a single creation worldview.

Sorry lookinla, but you have no idea what you are talking about, being on the outside looking in. I've been there, done that. The only science taught in public schools is that shown to be true through empirical evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

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.



Yes. We have learned that the central unifying theme of biology is evolution, and that natural selection is the mechanism for evolution.

And that the naturalistic impetuses alone are adequate or inadequate to produce humanity from non-humanity?

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.

Great. Did the solid preparation address the issue concerning the adequacy or inadequacy of solely naturalistic mechanisms to create humanity from non-humanity?

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."

Amen. Science shouldn't be teaching creationism in science classes. The creation of humanity from non-humanity shouldn't be in the realm of science.

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.

Thanks.

 

[justlookinla]

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

I'm a theistic biblelist.

When you say "Natural selection, etc. Yes, those mechanisms are sufficient to explain said biological diversity", are you concluding that God isn't needed or necessary in the creation of humanity from non-humanity? And, are you suggesting that the viewpoint of the sufficiency of naturalistic mechanisms alone to produce all of life we observe today is being taught in our schools? If not, what is taught concerning the sufficiency of naturalistic mechanisms to create all life (not abiogenesis) we observe today?

 

[justlookinla]

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

Ok, thanks. Apparently some there believe they're the product of worm sex.

 

[MuchWiser]

I'm a theistic biblelist.

When you say "Natural selection, etc. Yes, those mechanisms are sufficient to explain said biological diversity", are you concluding that God isn't needed or necessary in the creation of humanity from non-humanity? And, are you suggesting that the viewpoint of the sufficiency of naturalistic mechanisms alone to produce all of life we observe today is being taught in our schools? If not, what is taught concerning the sufficiency of naturalistic mechanisms to create all life (not abiogenesis) we observe today?

Would you mind if we also told the students that the Wogglywamwigwog also played a part? or are you concluding that the Wogglywamwigwog isn't needed or necessary in the creation of humanity from non-humanity?

Trying to include a non-existent God is as ridiculous as trying to include a non-existent Wogglywamwigwog.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm a theistic biblelist.

That might mean something to you, but to me that just sounds like words smashed together.

What is a "Bibleist"? Someone who believes the [Christian] Bible? There's already a word for that, it's Christian.

I suppose all you are really trying to assert is that somehow fidelity to Holy Scripture is set apart from agreement with biological evolution. I would classify that as obvious nonsense since plenty of us have no problem being both religious persons and scientifically literate persons. And we don't have to play a game of pick and choosing either science or the ancient faith.

When you say "Natural selection, etc. Yes, those mechanisms are sufficient to explain said biological diversity", are you concluding that God isn't needed or necessary in the creation of humanity from non-humanity? And, are you suggesting that the viewpoint of the sufficiency of naturalistic mechanisms alone to produce all of life we observe today is being taught in our schools? If not, what is taught concerning the sufficiency of naturalistic mechanisms to create all life (not abiogenesis) we observe today?

Naturalistic explanations are sufficient to describe the process of how when I intake food it is broken down in my body, the essential nutrients absorbed and used, and the waste material excreted.

I presume you would agree, unless perhaps you feel that this process being described in entirely naturalistic terms somehow excludes the Divine, and God's role in food breaking down in the body and used for nutrition being wholly excluded.

So before I answer any more of your questions, I would like you to answer mine:

Q) Does a scientific explanation for the process of digestion, of taking bodily nutrition out from consumed food, require by necessity an acceptance of Divine activity?

If your answer is yes, then perhaps you could provide that explanation in a scientific--that is, by following the scientific method--manner.

If your answer is no, then you have my answer to your inquiries.

My prediction is that you won't actually answer my question, but instead will dodge it and go right back to asking your question again.

So you really have one of two choices:

1) We play this game but I'm setting the rules in which we are equals and you get to answer my question, or

2) The game is over, and you acknowledge that this is, in fact, just a game and you have no legitimate interest in the conversation.

Those are my terms, take them or leave them.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ok, thanks. Apparently some there believe they're the product of worm sex.

I have yet to encounter anyone saying anything about "worm sex" who actually embraces the accepted science.

As such "worm sex" is about as meaningful as "If evolution is true, how do dogs become cats?" or "Why are there still monkeys?" In which case we might as well be concerned that the big giant light disk in the sky is going to fall.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[justlookinla]

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?

I don't doubt for a minute that natural processes are a part of God's creation, but that's not the issue. The issue is concerning the creationist viewpoint being taught to our children in school.

Standard Christian theology concludes that all creation is by God. Contrast that to the creationist viewpoint that only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms are responsible, sufficient and the only explanation for the creation of humanity from non-humanity. That's atheistic creationism.

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

Apparently you reject the teaching that naturalistic mechanisms alone are sufficient for the creation of humanity from non-humanity. Good for you.

Yes, my statement of evolution does not include God. Why should it?

Why shouldn't it? The naturalistic mechanisms alone, without other impetuses, aren't sufficient for the creation of humanity from non-humanity, are they? That's a pretty important part of creationism.

"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.

Staying with the Darwinist creationism issue. If someone said, "evolution produced humans", the soon to be followup question would be "how"?

Would you answer, by naturalistic mechanisms alone, which are sufficient in and of themselves, needing no other impetuses, to produce humanity from non-humanity, or would you answer, naturalistic mechanisms, which alone, could not produce humanity from non-humanity without God being involved?

It isn't about "creationism"; only you think evolution is a kind of creationism -- it's one of those things you made up.

It's entirely about creationism. Humanity didn't exist. Now humanity exists. How?

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.

Nope, wrong. The "small biological changes" are the result of naturalistic mechanisms, not the naturalistic mechanisms themselves.

Science deals with statements about natural processes -- processes that we can see occurring in nature -- and that's all the description of evolution includes.

Really? What we can see occurring in nature? When is the last time anyone observed a single life form becoming humanity?

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.

An atheist will embrace the worldview that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient in and of themselves, sufficient alone, sufficient with no other impetuses for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago. A theist will not accept the sufficiency of the creation of humanity from a life form of long long ago without the involvement of a creator.

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.

It can't be true that humanity is the creation, from a single life form of long long ago, by only, solely, naturalistic mechanisms if one has the viewpoint that humanity is the creation, from a single life form of long long ago, by insufficient naturalistic mechanisms needing other impetuses for creation.

It leaves out "God is responsible for the existence of these processes".

Not only does it leave God out, but the viewpoint teaches that all life we observe today is only explained by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. This naturalistic mechanism is without question sufficient and adequate for creating all life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago.

You can easily see then that simply because the atheistic creationist viewpoint doesn't mention God, it's not neutral concerning creationism, concerning how humanity was created from non-humanity.

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.)

And as a theist, you modify the viewpoint to include God. That's wonderful.

?? 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.

The truth concerning creation was true and known thousands of years before the atheistic creationist viewpoint of Darwinism was invented. If it addresses how humanity came into existence, the bible very specifically addresses it.

 

[justlookinla]

Diz Just 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

The workable solution is to simply address science. Is it science to teach that humanity is the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting in a single life form from long long ago? If so, teach it, if not, drop it.

Not complicated, really.

 

[justlookinla]

How are we going to tell the students God did it if we can not explain to them how magic works? do you know?
What do we say when a student asks 'how'?

When a student asks "how", tell them the truth. That's outside the realm of science. We don't know.

That's not advantageous to the atheist creationist agenda though.

 

[justlookinla]

Sorry lookinla, but you have no idea what you are talking about, being on the outside looking in. I've been there, done that. The only science taught in public schools is that shown to be true through empirical evidence.

There's evidence that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient alone, with nothing else needed, for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago?

Where is this evidence? And as Christian, do you believe it?

 

[justlookinla]

Would you mind if we also told the students that the Wogglywamwigwog also played a part? or are you concluding that the Wogglywamwigwog isn't needed or necessary in the creation of humanity from non-humanity?

Trying to include a non-existent God is as ridiculous as trying to include a non-existent Wogglywamwigwog.

How many times do I have to say this. Don't teach theistic or atheistic creationism in our schools. Drop the only creationist viewpoint taught in schools today, atheistic creationism. Eliminate it. Discard it.

 

[justlookinla]

That might mean something to you, but to me that just sounds like words smashed together.

What is a "Bibleist"? Someone who believes the [Christian] Bible? There's already a word for that, it's Christian.

I suppose all you are really trying to assert is that somehow fidelity to Holy Scripture is set apart from agreement with biological evolution. I would classify that as obvious nonsense since plenty of us have no problem being both religious persons and scientifically literate persons. And we don't have to play a game of pick and choosing either science or the ancient faith.



Naturalistic explanations are sufficient to describe the process of how when I intake food it is broken down in my body, the essential nutrients absorbed and used, and the waste material excreted.

I presume you would agree, unless perhaps you feel that this process being described in entirely naturalistic terms somehow excludes the Divine, and God's role in food breaking down in the body and used for nutrition being wholly excluded.

So before I answer any more of your questions, I would like you to answer mine:

Do they relate to the creationist viewpoint that all of life was created from a single life form of long long ago only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic mechanisms? That's the issue.

Q) Does a scientific explanation for the process of digestion, of taking bodily nutrition out from consumed food, require by necessity an acceptance of Divine activity?

If your answer is yes, then perhaps you could provide that explanation in a scientific--that is, by following the scientific method--manner.

If your answer is no, then you have my answer to your inquiries.

My prediction is that you won't actually answer my question, but instead will dodge it and go right back to asking your question again.

You're right, I'm not answering it. You're trying the typical diversion tactic that's used when the discussion of the issue isn't going one's way.

So you really have one of two choices:

1) We play this game but I'm setting the rules in which we are equals and you get to answer my question, or

2) The game is over, and you acknowledge that this is, in fact, just a game and you have no legitimate interest in the conversation.

Those are my terms, take them or leave them.

-CryptoLutheran

The rule is to discuss creationism. That's it. Discuss the issue, not digestive problems. I suggest you visit your local pharmacy for help on that.

 

[RickG]

When a student asks "how", tell them the truth. That's outside the realm of science. We don't know.

That's not advantageous to the atheist creationist agenda though.

Wrong lookinla. When science doesn't know the answer or cannot fully support it, science clearly states what it does not understand or know. All you need to do is read an actual published peer review paper to see this.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong lookinla. When science doesn't know the answer or cannot fully support it, science clearly states what it does not understand or know. All you need to do is read an actual published peer review paper to see this.

Does science clearly state that it doesn't understand or know the impetuses which created humanity from a single life form of long long ago?

 

[RickG]

There's evidence that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient alone, with nothing else needed, for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago?

Where is this evidence? And as Christian, do you believe it?

Both Genesis and science state abiogenesis.

 

[justlookinla]

Both Genesis and science state abiogenesis.

What's the scientific position on abiogenesis? I bet it's going to be vague, with a lot of 'not sure's, maybe's and could be's.

 

[justlookinla]

There's evidence that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient alone, with nothing else needed, for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago?

Where is this evidence? And as Christian, do you believe it?

Both Genesis and science state abiogenesis.

You didn't answer the questions.