How were you taught Evolution?

[Atheos canadensis]

Yes, that's what I was asking. If something other than a solely naturalistic process for the creation of humanity was taught, what was it?

Try as you might, you just can't seem to get the only answer you want or are willing to accept. The answer he gave (I'm sure he'll clarify if I'm wrong) was that he in science class he was taught only the natural process for the creation of humanity. You seem unwilling to accept this answer because it directly contradicts your talking point about atheistic creationism being taught in science class. Quatona has pretty clearly stated that in science class he was taught only the natural mechanisms of evolution and in theology classes was taught that God used those mechanisms to create. Those Jesuits taught him only the natural mechanisms of evolution (in science class) and yet were obviously not imparting an atheist metaphysic. And according to him the lessons he received in Catholic school were the same lessons he received in public school. This confirms what I've been saying all along, and indeed what 100% of poll respondents have said: schools aren't teaching your "atheistic creation".

 

[justlookinla]

Try as you might, you just can't seem to get the only answer you want or are willing to accept. The answer he gave (I'm sure he'll clarify if I'm wrong) was that he in science class he was taught only the natural process for the creation of humanity. You seem unwilling to accept this answer because it directly contradicts your talking point about atheistic creationism being taught in science class. Quatona has pretty clearly stated that in science class he was taught only the natural mechanisms of evolution and in theology classes was taught that God used those mechanisms to create. Those Jesuits taught him only the natural mechanisms of evolution (in science class) and yet were obviously not imparting an atheist metaphysic. And according to him the lessons he received in Catholic school were the same lessons he received in public school. This confirms what I've been saying all along, and indeed what 100% of poll respondents have said: schools aren't teaching your "atheistic creation".

This will be determined in the courts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This will be determined in the courts.

It already has been.

Amateur rants like yours won't even make it through the courtroom door. Your nonsense would be tossed by the judge before the trial started. At least that would save you a contempt of court charge.

 

[justlookinla]

It already has been.

Amateur rants like yours won't even make it through the courtroom door. Your nonsense would be tossed by the judge before the trial started. At least that would save you a contempt of court charge.

Nope it hasn't. Wait and watch. Your atheistic creationism is going to be challenged in the courts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope it hasn't. Wait and watch. Your atheistic creationism is going to be challenged in the courts.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

This will be determined in the courts.

If you say so. But it certainly hasn't been determined here. Here we have seen that your insistence that "atheistic creationism" is being taught in science class has been refuted by various people, Quatona being the best example. But of course you aren't willing to admit that you've been shown to be wrong; instead you declare that the courts will decide. Until then, I trust you will cease making the now clearly refuted claim that schools are teaching atheistic creationism in science class. I'll be happy to link you back to this thread if you do.

 

[biggles53]

Hmmmm....22 to 1. And the odd one out says it was taught allowing for the input of a god...

So, exactly ZERO who experienced it as being 'atheistic'...

Well done Atheos.....SLAM DUNK..!

 

[justlookinla]

If you say so. But it certainly hasn't been determined here. Here we have seen that your insistence that "atheistic creationism" is being taught in science class has been refuted by various people, Quatona being the best example. But of course you aren't willing to admit that you've been shown to be wrong; instead you declare that the courts will decide. Until then, I trust you will cease making the now clearly refuted claim that schools are teaching atheistic creationism in science class. I'll be happy to link you back to this thread if you do.

No, the question still remains, is the creationist viewpoint that all of life, including humanity, is solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago taught in our schools.

I asked Artemis this question....."Were you taught that solely naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form of many many years ago?"

His answer....."It hasn't been summarized precisely that way in the science classes I've taken at school, but yep, that's the gist of it."

So, yes it's taught and you very well know it.

I ask you one more time, what other creationist viewpoint is presented in our schools other than that one?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

No, the question still remains, is the creationist viewpoint that all of life, including humanity, is solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago taught in our schools.

I asked Artemis this question....."Were you taught that solely naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form of many many years ago?"

His answer....."It hasn't been summarized precisely that way in the science classes I've taken at school, but yep, that's the gist of it."

So, yes it's taught and you very well know it.

I ask you one more time, what other creationist viewpoint is presented in our schools other than that one?

I guarantee that Artemis is simply not aware of the meaning you ascribe to the teaching of only natural mechanisms, i.e. atheistic creationisms.

ETA: Well how about that, I was exactly right and her response puts another nail in your erroneous belief's already well-nailed coffin.


I notice you didn't address my analysis of Quatona's response to you. He stated that he was taught only the natural mechanisms by Jesuits who were clearly not advancing an atheistic metaphysic and that his Catholic school education on evolution was the same as his public school education. This directly refutes your claim that atheistic creationism is taught. If you aren't willing to admit that this confirms my position and refutes yours, you should try to explain how those Jesuits were actually teaching him atheistic creationism. I predict however that your response will not even attempt to address Quatona's experience.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Hmmmm....22 to 1. And the odd one out says it was taught allowing for the input of a god...

So, exactly ZERO who experienced it as being 'atheistic'...

Well done Atheos.....SLAM DUNK..!

*Bows*. And in fact that 1 vote that indicated an affirmation of God's role clarified in a post that the affirmation came from his parents; in school there was neither affirmation nor denial. In fact the only denial evident is Juslookinla's; despite Quatona's clear statement that he was taught only natural mechanisms in science class in Catholic school and that those lessons were the same as in public school, Just can't help but reiterate his unsupported assertion that schools are teaching atheistic creationism.

 

[Strathos]

First of all, it is only tradition that says Moses wrote anything in GEN 1-2. Secondly, even if Moses did write it, it does not mean it was meant to be viewed as an "historical, eyewitness record." How could it be, when Moses wasn't even there when it happened??

Not to mention God wasn't trying to teach Moses cosmology, geology, biology, and all the sciences needed to understand how He created the earth. That stuff wasn't important for Moses and the Israelites to know at the time.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This will be determined in the courts.

Clearly evidence doesn't matter to you, but alas for your point of view, courts go by the evidence. They will note the testimony of people who are in the classes, it will be similar to the testimony given here, and they will conclude atheism is not being taught in the public schools.

Your case will be tossed out on that basis.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

No, the question still remains, is the creationist viewpoint that all of life, including humanity, is solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago taught in our schools.

I asked Artemis this question....."Were you taught that solely naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form of many many years ago?"

His answer....."It hasn't been summarized precisely that way in the science classes I've taken at school, but yep, that's the gist of it."

So, yes it's taught and you very well know it.

I ask you one more time, what other creationist viewpoint is presented in our schools other than that one?

Some clarifications:
~ I'm a girl.

~ I only read the initial post and skimmed through the last page, so I might have plunged into the conversation without examining the waters carefully enough, and if my post caused any confusion because of that I'm sorry. I'd never heard the term "atheistic creation" until I read it here and then Googled. I don't mean to be rude, but it seems like an oxymoron.

~ I wouldn't characterize the education I've received about evolution thus far at school as being atheistic. To me, atheism is more of a resolute personal disbelief in the existence of God, an antonym to Hebrews 11:1 faith. It's more about spirituality than concrete knowledge. Learning about evolution at school from a science-based naturalistic perspective hasn't, in my mind, eliminated the possibility of a supernatural deity (God) still having involvement in the origin of life or overseeing the evolutionary process. I've never inferred that because God wasn't credited in my science classes for being the creator of life that it invalidated or even diminished my belief that He is. I know that my current professor is Catholic, and my AP Environmental Science teacher is Jewish, but in the classroom they've never endorsed or dismissed a belief or disbelief in God. What we believe or disbelieve about God is up to us. My faith isn't reliant upon evidence, but my science classes need to reliant on scientific evidence.

 

[biggles53]

Well done Artemis....it would appear that you have been the unwitting victim of a favourite ploy of the dishonest creationist....the quote mine....

 

[quatona]

If you say so. But it certainly hasn't been determined here. Here we have seen that your insistence that "atheistic creationism" is being taught in science class has been refuted by various people, Quatona being the best example. But of course you aren't willing to admit that you've been shown to be wrong; instead you declare that the courts will decide. Until then, I trust you will cease making the now clearly refuted claim that schools are teaching atheistic creationism in science class. I'll be happy to link you back to this thread if you do.

Apparently I´m a little slow. It took me until here to figure out what point he tries to drive home, why he wasn´t happy with my detailed description, and why he started his Spanish Inquisition style questioning.

 

[RickG]

Clearly evidence doesn't matter to you, but alas for your point of view, courts go by the evidence. They will note the testimony of people who are in the classes, it will be similar to the testimony given here, and they will conclude atheism is not being taught in the public schools.

Your case will be tossed out on that basis.

(above bold emphasis mine) justlookinla's analogy is kind of like picking up a sales paper to his local grocery store, noticing that there is no mention of God in describing the sales items, and concluding that the grocery store is atheist.

The bulk of my working career (now retired) was in private industry, however, I did spend some 7 to 8 years teaching in the public school systems of 3 different states. Atheism is not being taught in the public school systems. In fact, of the numerous teachers meetings I had to attend, most were opened with a prayer.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Some clarifications:
~ I'm a girl.

~ I only read the initial post and skimmed through the last page, so I might have plunged into the conversation without examining the waters carefully enough, and if my post caused any confusion because of that I'm sorry. I'd never heard the term "atheistic creation" until I read it here and then Googled. I don't mean to be rude, but it seems like an oxymoron.

~ I wouldn't characterize the education I've received about evolution thus far at school as being atheistic. To me, atheism is more of a resolute personal disbelief in the existence of God, an antonym to Hebrews 11:1 faith. It's more about spirituality than concrete knowledge. Learning about evolution at school from a science-based naturalistic perspective hasn't, in my mind, eliminated the possibility of a supernatural deity (God) still having involvement in the origin of life or overseeing the evolutionary process. I've never inferred that because God wasn't credited in my science classes for being the creator of life that it invalidated or even diminished my belief that He is. I know that my current professor is Catholic, and my AP Environmental Science teacher is Jewish, but in the classroom they've never endorsed or dismissed a belief or disbelief in God. What we believe or disbelieve about God is up to us. My faith isn't reliant upon evidence, but my science classes need to reliant on scientific evidence.

Well done, Artemis. I told Justlookinla that your ostensible confirmation of his belief that "atheistic creationism" (by which he means evolution by natural processes alone) was purely the result of you not being aware of his personal definitions and that your reply would clarify that you were not taught his "atheistic creationism" in school. And that's exactly what happened. Now we see if mere data will sway his belief that he is right. I'm guessing it won't. I suspect he will just keep asking you what type of creationism you were taught because the real answer you and others have given (i.e. none) is not acceptable to him because it proves him wrong.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Apparently I´m a little slow. It took me until here to figure out what point he tries to drive home, why he wasn't happy with my detailed description, and why he started his Spanish Inquisition style questioning.

Don't worry, same thing happened to Artemis. As you now realize, he doesn't like your real answer because it disproves his unevidenced insistence that schools are teaching "atheistic creationism". Instead of allowing the data and testimonies gathered here to sway his erroneous opinion, he opts instead to keep asking you the same question in the hope that you will eventually change your answer to the one he wants. Clear evidence that he is wrong is apparently not sufficient to change his mind, or at least not sufficient to get him to admit he's wrong.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

(above bold emphasis mine) justlookinla's analogy is kind of like picking up a sales paper to his local grocery store, noticing that there is no mention of God in describing the sales items, and concluding that the grocery store is atheist.

The bulk of my working career (now retired) was in private industry, however, I did spend some 7 to 8 years teaching in the public school systems of 3 different states. Atheism is not being taught in the public school systems. In fact, of the numerous teachers meetings I had to attend, most were opened with a prayer.

Hmm, it seems like every testimony confirms my contention that "atheistic creationism" is not being taught in public schools. Admittedly ED claims that despite God not being mentioned either way, it was implicitly atheistic, though he refuses to explicitly state that not teaching God made evolution happen is the same as teaching he didn't. Really ED doesn't believe in evolution at all, either divinely driven or not, so of course he will consider any presentation of the theory to be inherently atheistic.

 

[justlookinla]

I guarantee that Artemis is simply not aware of the meaning you ascribe to the teaching of only natural mechanisms, i.e. atheistic creationisms.

ETA: Well how about that, I was exactly right and her response puts another nail in your erroneous belief's already well-nailed coffin.


I notice you didn't address my analysis of Quatona's response to you. He stated that he was taught only the natural mechanisms by Jesuits who were clearly not advancing an atheistic metaphysic and that his Catholic school education on evolution was the same as his public school education. This directly refutes your claim that atheistic creationism is taught. If you aren't willing to admit that this confirms my position and refutes yours, you should try to explain how those Jesuits were actually teaching him atheistic creationism. I predict however that your response will not even attempt to address Quatona's experience.

My response to anyone discussing this subject is to point out the fact that a creationist viewpoint is taught in schools by implication. When the creationist viewpoint presents only, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms for the creation of all life, including humanity, from a single life form from long long ago, then there are certain conclusions, certain implications from such a creationist viewpoint.

You, and others, attempt to introduce the view that God isn't mentioned either way in the creationist viewpoint, therefore it's somehow neutral.
But it's not neutral as to who or what created all of life, including humanity, it's presenting one and only one alleged fact for this creationism viewpoint.....one that is completely and totally atheistic.

So, kiddos, they say, believe what you wish, but we're only going to present the one proven scientific (it's not) viewpoint on how life was created from a single life form from long long ago until now. Look around you, kiddos....see all the complexity and variety of life? There is only on explanation, it was created only, completely, totally, solely by naturalistic mechanisms . That's it. Nothing else needed. Those are the facts.

This is the creationist viewpoint which is going to be challenged in the courts. The atheistic anti-theists who are promoting their Godless creationism are getting very upset that their creationist view is not going to be taught in our schools anymore.