How were you taught Evolution?

[justlookinla]

You are. Positing theories is not equivalent to claiming certainty. Positing natural mechanisms does not preclude the existence of non-natural mechanisms. But saying "We don't know" makes it seem like we have no idea whatsoever, which is false.

Ok...gotta run out for a while....be back later to continue. And to answer your other questions.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree with your answer. I disagree on the degree to which we have scientific evidence for origins, but evidence for evolution is a whole other thread and is rather beyond the scope of discussing how evolution is taught in schools. Now on to the next questions.

The theory of evolution is as certain as our theory of how lightning is made in clouds. Of course, Lightning Theory is not 100% certain, just like every other theory in science. However, I think everyone, including yourself, would agree that science doesn't need 100% certainty in order to teach a theory.

But more improtantly, what creationists usually ignore is that if they students are going to pursue a career in the biological sciences then they need to understand the theory of evolution and be able to apply it to their research. If we didn't teach evolution in classes such as population genetics and developmental biology the students would be ill equipped for working in those fields. Creationists want to act as if science class rooms are for indoctrination, either into theism and atheism. They completely forget about the overwhelming practical and pragmatic reasons that we have science classes: to train the next generation of scientists.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The theory of evolution is as certain as our theory of how lightning is made in clouds. Of course, Lightning Theory is not 100% certain, just like every other theory in science. However, I think everyone, including yourself, would agree that science doesn't need 100% certainty in order to teach a theory.

But more improtantly, what creationists usually ignore is that if they students are going to pursue a career in the biological sciences then they need to understand the theory of evolution and be able to apply it to their research. If we didn't teach evolution in classes such as population genetics and developmental biology the students would be ill equipped for working in those fields. Creationists want to act as if science class rooms are for indoctrination, either into theism and atheism. They completely forget about the overwhelming practical and pragmatic reasons that we have science classes: to train the next generation of scientists.

I agree about the strength of the evidence for evolution and the importance of being versed in it. I"m just hoping that Just will move on to answering the other questions instead of becoming embroiled in a (no doubt fruitless) discussion of the evidence for evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Again, I am going to address your other questions, but I do want to examine this a little more.

If one doesn't say we don't know how humanity came into existence, then the assumption is that we do know how humanity came into existence. If we do know how humanity came into existence, according to various theories, then those would not be presented as anything but true and sufficient for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

Am I misstating the conclusion?

You are. Positing theories is not equivalent to claiming certainty. Positing natural mechanisms does not preclude the existence of non-natural mechanisms. But saying "We don't know" makes it seem like we have no idea whatsoever, which is false.

Thing is, you have no idea, all you have is a series of guesses and suppositions which are then interpolated into 'facts', but there are no facts concerning the impetus which is capable of producing humanity from a single life form of long long ago. Doing this is directly attributing the creation of humanity to only naturalistic mechanisms, suggesting, or directly claiming, that there is evidence supporting this view, which is a creationist view.

Anything more than "we don't know how humanity was created" is suggestive of 'we do know how humanity was created', which is a false claim.

 

[justlookinla]

Doesn't seem that convoluted. But at least we have your answer: don't teach them anything about how out biota arose. Just tell them we don't know. Though in fact we do have scientific evidence that various natural processes produced our biota. NOTE: This is not the same as saying that we have scientific evidence that no supernatural processes were involved (this ties in to question 2 wherein we examine the fact that christians accept that we arose through natural processes ordained and sustained by God).

Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop posting that science definition, or at least stop posting multiple times per post. It's unnecessary and clutters things up.


So 1 is dealt with. Now let's get to the other two:

2. If evolution by natural processes is atheistic, why do so many Christians here believe that our biota is the product of natural processes driven by God? If you respond yet again by saying that Christians don't believe in atheistic creation, a claim I have never made, you will be proving you have no actual response.

The issue isn't about evolution by natural processes, the issue is what/who created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. Humanity was created either by entirely naturalistic mechanisms, or those naturalistic mechanisms are incapable of creating humanity therefore needing additional impetuses. Christians reject the viewpoint that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient in and of themselves to create humanity and involve, in some manner, God as being an inseparable part of the creation process.

3. When you say you believe in evolution, what do you mean? You seem incapable of providing an answer besides "the kind supported by science", so maybe just answer these questions instead:
3(a). Do you believe birds evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from dinosaurs?

"The kind supported by science" is the best answer I can give. If the evolutionary view has scientific support, I accept it, if it doesn't, I tend to mostly reject it. Guesses and suppositions are just that.....guesses and suppositions.

No, I do not believe birds evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from dinosaurs.

3(b). Do you believe crows and ostriches evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

No.

3(c). Do you believe sparrows and chickadees evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

No.

3(d). Do you believe crows and ravens evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from a common ancestor?

No.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thing is, you have no idea, all you have is a series of guesses and suppositions which are then interpolated into 'facts', but there are no facts concerning the impetus which is capable of producing humanity from a single life form of long long ago. Doing this is directly attributing the creation of humanity to only naturalistic mechanisms, suggesting, or directly claiming, that there is evidence supporting this view, which is a creationist view.

Anything more than "we don't know how humanity was created" is suggestive of 'we do know how humanity was created', which is a false claim.

Then you would be against creationism or ID being taught in schools as well then, because it suggests people know how humanity came to be.

 

[EternalDragon]

Then you would be against creationism or ID being taught in schools as well then, because it suggests people know how humanity came to be.

He's been saying that, hasn't he?

I prefer a home school course where they teach both sides (or all sides) with all facts presented truthfully and not just one conclusion containing a bunch of guesses and what if's paraded as scientific fact to children.

 

[lasthero]

He's been saying that, hasn't he?

I prefer a home school course where they teach both sides (or all sides) with all facts presented truthfully and not just one conclusion containing a bunch of guesses and what if's paraded as scientific fact to children.

 

[Split Rock]

He's been saying that, hasn't he?

I prefer a home school course where they teach both sides (or all sides) with all facts presented truthfully and not just one conclusion containing a bunch of guesses and what if's paraded as scientific fact to children.

You pretend not to know what a "guess" is. Also, how many "sides" should be taught? Should students not learn how science actually works? Like, how to draw conclusions from all these "facts presented truthfully," which by themselves tell us little? All because you can't tell historical narrative from allegory in an old book?

 

[justlookinla]

Then you would be against creationism or ID being taught in schools as well then, because it suggests people know how humanity came to be.

Yes, I'm not for any form of creationism to be taught in schools.

But, if the inherently atheistic creationist view that only naturalistic processes are needed and are sufficient within themselves to create humanity from a single life form of long long ago is taught, then there should at least be another alternative viewpoint alongside the guesses and suppositions of that particular inherently atheistic creationist worldview. Intelligent Design would present a competing view, would be religion neutral in the sense that no specific religion would be promoted, and would offer as valid an explanation as the inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint being presented in schools today.

 

[justlookinla]

He's been saying that, hasn't he?

I prefer a home school course where they teach both sides (or all sides) with all facts presented truthfully and not just one conclusion containing a bunch of guesses and what if's paraded as scientific fact to children.

Exactly. What is the truth concerning who/what created humanity? Present the evidence, present the guesses and suppositions and then let each individual decide for themselves what is true.

As it is, atheistic creationists are railroading their Godless worldview down the throat of our children and deceitfully calling it science.

 

[justlookinla]

You pretend not to know what a "guess" is. Also, how many "sides" should be taught? Should students not learn how science actually works? Like, how to draw conclusions from all these "facts presented truthfully," which by themselves tell us little? All because you can't tell historical narrative from allegory in an old book?

Science works like this.....

"sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."​

That's why atheistic Darwinist creationism isn't science.

 

[MuchWiser]

Intelligent Design would present a competing view, would be religion neutral in the sense that no specific religion would be promoted, and would offer as valid an explanation as the inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint being presented in schools today.

How can you say ID would offer a valid alternative?
What does ID tell us?
Something? we don't know what it is or where it is or how it got where ever it is did something that caused everything to exist.
Is that your alternative? would you tell the students to believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence other than the fact that everything exists, you might just as well tell them a magic man in the sky did it all.

Do you even know what education is?

 

[justlookinla]

How can you say ID would offer a valid alternative?
What does ID tell us?
Something? we don't know what it is or where it is or how it got where ever it is did something that caused everything to exist.
Is that your alternative? would you tell the students to believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence other than the fact that everything exists, you might just as well tell them a magic man in the sky did it all.

Do you even know what education is?

Today, in our schools, the teaching of atheistic creationism is being passed off as science education. That's education, but it's the wrong kind of education, it's educating our children in an atheistic creationist worldview.

Intelligent Design would be as valid a creationist view as the current creationist view of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism sufficient within itself to produce the indescribably complex and varied creation we observe today from a single life form of long long ago.

 

[Naturalism]

Exactly. What is the truth concerning who/what created humanity? Present the evidence, present the guesses and suppositions and then let each individual decide for themselves what is true.

Typically in science classes all that is beyond the scope of a biology class. When I took biology it was introduction to animal anatomy & in turn a comparison to human anatomy, how & why organisms are classified and organized into Clades.

The truth, so far as naturalistic processes can show, is that on smaller time scale we share common ancestry with other Great Apes, on a more grand time scale we share common ancestry with all of life.

 

[Naturalism]

That's why atheistic Darwinist creationism isn't science.

In what way is it not science? They are studying the natural world, natural causes for natural effects.

 

[Naturalism]

Intelligent Design would present a competing view, would be religion neutral in the sense that no specific religion would be promoted, and would offer as valid an explanation as the inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint being presented in schools today.

A competing view as a model is valid if it can adequately explain the same or more or amount of observations as the existing one. ID cannot do this, it cannot even explain biostratigraphy (geological location of fossils).

ID has tried to distance itself from any religions or mention of specific gods, but the history as shown in Dover in 2005 demonstrated that its inception stems from biblical creationists response to the 1987 ruling in which Creationism was found to not be science.

Science is the application of using natural causes to explain natural effects. Does ID do this? No, not really. This is further demonstrated in Dover as under oath Behe & other ID advocates when asked on the scientific measure of ID, their response ended up tacitly admitting that if ID was considered scientific then so would astrology.

It asserts some other supernatural cause is responsible, for instance, in creation of & diversity of life. In Evolutionary biology we have natural processes (e.g. natural selection) that allow for rigorous testing to see how well the facts of this process line up with the model. Does ID have anything comparative?

Again, no, not really. What processes and mechanisms did the designer use to create or diversify life? ID advocates don't say & really they can't as there is nothing there to even assert other than good ol' magic.

Single Malt anyone?

 

[justlookinla]

Typically in science classes all that is beyond the scope of a biology class. When I took biology it was introduction to animal anatomy & in turn a comparison to human anatomy, how & why organisms are classified and organized into Clades.

The truth, so far as naturalistic processes can show, is that on smaller time scale we share common ancestry with other Great Apes, on a more grand time scale we share common ancestry with all of life.

First, the suggestion of common ancestry is taking similarities and concluding that life came from one single life form of long long ago. There is no science for that, only a series of guesses and suppositions.

Secondly, and in my opinion more importantly, is the question of how indescribably complex and varied life today was created. The answer is, nobody knows, it all depends on one's faith-based creationist view. A single life form from which all plants and animals were created is only a supposition, a guess.

The conclusion is that the creationist worldview taught in schools today, and it is a creationist theory, is based on less than concrete evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

A competing view as a model is valid if it can adequately explain the same or more or amount of observations as the existing one. ID cannot do this, it cannot even explain biostratigraphy (geological location of fossils).

There's much that the current creationist worldview being taught today cannot explain. Explanation isn't the same as guessing, with guessing being a large part of the Darwinist creationist worldview. Could have been this, could have been that, maybe this, maybe that....isn't anything but an opinion.

Intelligent Design does address the issues of the tremendous complexity and variety of life and the likelihood that this life arose entirely, solely, only, completely by random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation and directionless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

ID has tried to distance itself from any religions or mention of specific gods, but the history as shown in Dover in 2005 demonstrated that its inception stems from biblical creationists response to the 1987 ruling in which Creationism was found to not be science.

No doubt Intelligent Design demands a supernatural impetus. It does not demand adherence to any supernatural creationist worldview though.

Science is the application of using natural causes to explain natural effects. Does ID do this? No, not really. This is further demonstrated in Dover as under oath Behe & other ID advocates when asked on the scientific measure of ID, their response ended up tacitly admitting that if ID was considered scientific then so would astrology.

The current concept of creation taught today isn't supported by science either.

:sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.'​

It asserts some other supernatural cause is responsible, for instance, in creation of & diversity of life. In Evolutionary biology we have natural processes (e.g. natural selection) that allow for rigorous testing to see how well the facts of this process line up with the model. Does ID have anything comparative?

The Darwinist creationist view of today is based on a series of guesses and suppositions, could be's, might have been's, ect. Intelligent Design also uses guesses and suppositions. They're comparative in that they both use real world examples and infer conclusions from them using guesses and suppositions.

Again, no, not really. What processes and mechanisms did the designer use to create or diversify life? ID advocates don't say & really they can't as there is nothing there to even assert other than good ol' magic.

We don't know what processes and mechanisms the designer used. We also know that there's absolutely no science for the worldview that all of the indescribably complex and variety of life we observe today is the product of only, solely, random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanisms acting on an alleged (guess) single life form from long long ago.

Single Malt anyone?

I found something infinitely better. In fact, I'm alive today because of what I found.

 

[MuchWiser]

Intelligent Design would be as valid a creationist view as the current creationist view of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism sufficient within itself to produce the indescribably complex and varied creation we observe today from a single life form of long long ago.

Even the way you put it is better than telling children a magic man did it all.