How were you taught Evolution?

[bhsmte]

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

I guess this means if he had a heart problem, he would seek out a dermatologist to help him.

 

[seashale76]

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?

If by 'people' you are referring specifically to anyone who bothers to answer your question, then no.

 

[RickG]

You didn't answer the questions.

All physical evidence we have points toward natural occurrence.

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

Then it is good that neither theistic or atheistic creationism is in the public school curriculum. I'm not really understanding your concern about something being taught in our schools when it is not being taught.

 

[bhsmte]

Then it is good that neither theistic or atheistic creationism is in the public school curriculum. I'm not really understanding your concern about something being taught in our schools when it is not being taught.

Fundamentalists need something to go on about, they need some kind of enemy. When the going gets tough, they just manufacture one in their own mind, to fill this need.

 

[sfs]

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.

But that viewpoint seems to exist only in your head, not in the real schools that real children attend. Perhaps you should address the issue with the imaginary teachers who are promoting this imaginary view.

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.

You're absolutely correct. The imaginary viewpoint being promulgated in your imaginary schools is atheistic. I'd love to help you stamp it out, but I'm only able to deal with real-life teachers, not imaginary ones.

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

Quite incorrect. I don't reject that teaching because that teaching doesn't exist. See, I work with real scientists, not your imaginary ones.

Why shouldn't it?

Because it has nothing to do with the scientific content of the statement. And you didn't answer the question: why should every statement about evolution mention God? Why?

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?

Of course not. I'd answer that evolution produced humans by a gradual series of random mutations, filtered by natural selection and affected by genetic drift -- because that's what the evidence says. I wouldn't comment about the presence or absence of a divine role unless I was talking to someone interested in my religious views. Mostly when I'm talking about evolution, even with other Christians, I'm doing so in a professional context, where the religious dimension is irrelevant.

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

Your question has nothing to do with my statement. "Creationism" has a specific meaning in English, and that's not how you're using the word.

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

I have no idea what this distinction is supposed to mean.

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

We see mutation, selection and drift occurring all the time. We see the clear record of those same forces changing our common ancestor with other animals into humans.

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.

Quite. Everyone agrees with you on that. What you haven't shown is that anyone is teaching the atheist version anywhere. In fact, everyone tells you they're not. In response, you assert over and over again that the simple statement of evolution is inherently atheist, without being able to offer any kind of sane justification.

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.

Yeah, I know? So what? You're still confusing physical mechanisms (small genetic changes) with ultimate ones.

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.

No, it doesn't. The viewpoint teaches nothing of the sort. The viewpoint in your head does, but that's not the one we're dealing with in the real world.

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 so it continues . . . Not mentioning God does not equal asserting that God wasn't involved. Talking about physical mechanisms for the creation of humans does not rule out God. These are illogical beliefs you hold and that we don't hold. So no, we really can't "easily see".

 

[selfinflikted]

Wow. 71 pages of Justlook repeating the same two sentences.

And I read almost every page. I want to kill myself now.

 

[bhsmte]

Wow. 71 pages of Justlook repeating the same two sentences.

And I read almost every page. I want to kill myself now.

Think of it this way, it will only make you appreciate those more, that you can have a rational discussion with.

 

[Delphiki]

Funny how the votes go from 0 to 4 when I point out that nobody voted for the first option, even justlookingla... Now, I wonder if it's a matter of dishonesty or a matter of not understanding the poll.

 

[bhsmte]

Funny how the votes go from 0 to 4 when I point out that nobody voted for the first option, even justlookingla... Now, I wonder if it's a matter of dishonesty or a matter of not understanding the poll.

Take a gander at the content of the posts from the 4 who voted for number one and you will have your answer.

 

[Aureus]

Ah if only it was a public poll... ah yes it is. LOL.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

And so it should be. There's nothing wrong, indeed everything right, about admitting to having only vague ideas and not being sure about something.

Some people around here seem to think its wrong to admit to uncertainty under any and all circumstances, including the presence of actual uncertainty.

 

[bhsmte]

And so it should be. There's nothing wrong, indeed everything right, about admitting to having only vague ideas and not being sure about something.

Some people around here seem to think its wrong to admit to uncertainty under any and all circumstances, including the presence of actual uncertainty.

The fundy philosophy does not allow any; "I don't know" type of responses, which is why they just make stuff up, as they go along.

When one's faith belief has obvious contradictions with reality, the inner turmoil that goes on is intense. To fight this off, one has to; deny reality and come up with some alternate explanation that fits their story and it's usually desperation and scramble time in doing so.

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

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.

Just

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.

Ok let's try it for the third time. How do you think teachers in science class should explain the diversity of life?

Dizredux

 

[MuchWiser]

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.

Why don't do as we are doing now? tell them what we do know.

 

[justlookinla]

All physical evidence we have points toward natural occurrence.

Solely natural occurrences with no need or use for any other impetus?

 

[justlookinla]

Then it is good that neither theistic or atheistic creationism is in the public school curriculum. I'm not really understanding your concern about something being taught in our schools when it is not being taught.

Sure it's being taught. The creationist viewpoint that only, totally solely, completely naturalistic mechanisms created all life, including humanity, from a single life form of long long ago is being taught. The creationist viewpoint that naturalistic mechanisms are adequate in and of themselves to create all life, including humanity from a single life form of long long ago is being taught.

Atheistic creationism.

 

[MuchWiser]

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.

What do we teach them then nothing? why don't we just carry on teaching science and encourage creationists to home school their children until creationism just dies out naturally? after all we can't run the villafe just to suit the village idiot.

 

[RickG]

Solely natural occurrences with no need or use for any other impetus?

I see no other physical evidence ...kinla.

 

[Naturalism]

Solely natural occurrences with no need or use for any other impetus?

What part of "All physical evidence we have points toward natural occurrence." is beyond your comprehension?