justlookinla
Regular Member
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.
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.
Quite incorrect. I don't reject that teaching because that teaching doesn't exist. See, I work with real scientists, not your imaginary ones.
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?
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.
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.
I have no idea what this distinction is supposed to mean.
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.
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.
Yeah, I know? So what? You're still confusing physical mechanisms (small genetic changes) with ultimate ones.
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.
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".
When the naturalistic mechanisms are presented as complete, adequate and the only explanation for the creation of all of life from a single life form of long long ago, that's eliminating God by implication. Not mentioning God does not equate with a neutral position on God's involvement, a take Him or leave Him viewpoint. The viewpoint which teaches that only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient for the creation of all life we observe today quickly eliminates God.
Atheistic creationism.
Upvote
0