How were you taught Evolution?

[justlookinla]

*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.

When a creationist viewpoint is presented which is devoid of God, it's an implicit Godless creationist viewpoint.

Of course a teacher doesn't say this is a Godless creationist viewpoint. A Godless creationist viewpoint is presented without mentioning God.

Your questions were leading and dishonest.

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.

When only naturalistic mechanisms are the sole creator of humanity, that's an atheistic creation of humanity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think anyone is biting at your nonsense any more justlook.

You are a one trick pony and a very poor one at that.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

That's because justlookinla made the term up.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

Actually, they will note what creationist viewpoint is being taught in class by examining the lesson plans. Questions like, what created humanity will be examined The answer will be that solely naturalistic processes created humanity which then will be a short step to eliminating any creationist viewpoint which promotes a certain view of the creation of humanity.

That's an extreme simplified example. It's coming though.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

In your education so far, did any of your professors attribute the creation of life (not abiogenesis) from one single life form from long long ago, to the complexity and variety of life we observe today to anything but solely naturalistic processes?

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.

This science-based naturalistic perspective, was it presenting humanity, for example, as anything other than a life form created entirely, solely, by naturalistic mechanisms?

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 understand that God wasn't specifically credited or denied in your science class. It would be very surprising if that happened. My questions are concerning the teaching as a fact, without question, that all of life we observe today is solely due to naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

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.

And they shouldn't.

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.

Yes, it's our personal choice as to our belief or disbelief in God. And I couldn't agree more that science classes need to rely on scientific evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

Asking about what was taught in your school concerning creationism is "spainish inquisition style questioning"?

The point I'm driving home is concerning the atheistic creationist viewpoint. And folks who demand that viewpoint be taught in our schools are getting upset.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Asking about what was taught in your school concerning creationism is "spainish inquisition style questioning"?

The point I'm driving home is concerning the atheistic creationist viewpoint. And folks who demand that viewpoint be taught in our schools are getting upset.

No, it was done to show you that your claim was bogus. No one was taught evolution in the manner that you claim they were.

 

[justlookinla]

(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.

How about the creationist viewpoint that all of life, including humanity, is the result of solely, completely, totally, only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago? Was that taught? If not, what was taught?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about the creationist viewpoint that all of life, including humanity, is the result of solely, completely, totally, only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago? Was that taught? If not, what was taught?

Nope.

The theory of evolution was taught. Just like teaching gravity without mentioning God does not advance atheism, neither does teaching evolution without mentioning God advance atheism.

It seems that you are really upset that evolution debunks the myths of Genesis. Don't worry, they were pretty much debunked before Darwin came along. Geology had long ago debunked Noah's flood. And biologists did not base their work on the Adam and Eve myth.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[justlookinla]

. .

 

[DerelictJunction]

Actually, they will note what creationist viewpoint is being taught in class by examining the lesson plans. Questions like, what created humanity will be examined The answer will be that solely naturalistic processes created humanity which then will be a short step to eliminating any creationist viewpoint which promotes a certain view of the creation of humanity.

That's an extreme simplified example. It's coming though.

Well, you couldn't produce a single lesson plan or textbook that says what you claim. Now you say the "courts" will look at the "lesson plans" and come to the same conclusion as you.

Are you just blowing smoke now or were you too lazy to produce evidence to support your claims when you were requested to do so?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

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.

This is merely a longwinded reiteration of the same unevidenced (and now disproven) assertion you've been making all along. You're now insisting that it is atheistic by implication, but this is directly refuted by Quatona's experience, which you refuse to address. In both public and Catholic school he was given the same education on evolution, yet obviously in the latter case there was no atheistic implication. How do you respond to that fact? My guess is that you will ignore it entirely and simply reiterate your favourite talking point.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, you couldn't produce a single lesson plan or textbook that says what you claim. Now you say the "courts" will look at the "lesson plans" and come to the same conclusion as you.

Are you just blowing smoke now or were you too lazy to produce evidence to support your claims when you were requested to do so?

The lesson plans will be produced, we both know that.

In the meantime though, would you please reveal what other creationist viewpoint, other than the entirely naturalistic viewpoint, is being presented in schools today? Anything?

 

[justlookinla]

This is merely a longwinded reiteration of the same unevidenced (and now disproven) assertion you've been making all along. You're now insisting that it is atheistic by implication, but this is directly refuted by Quatona's experience, which you refuse to address. In both public and Catholic school he was given the same education on evolution, yet obviously in the latter case there was no atheistic implication. How do you respond to that fact? My guess is that you will ignore it entirely and simply reiterate your favourite talking point.

It's so very simple. All life we observe today is the creation of solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. That's an inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint. The only one allowed in schools. For now.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The lesson plans will be produced, we both know that.

In the meantime though, would you please reveal what other creationist viewpoint, other than the entirely naturalistic viewpoint, is being presented in schools today? Anything?

This is a loaded question, as I'm sure you must realize. It contains the built-in premise that there is any creationist viewpoint at all being presented, a premise which has been roundly refuted by the various testimonies here. Quatona was taught the same thing in both a Catholic and secular setting. Obviously he wasn't being taught "atheistic creationism" by the Jesuits, so how do you justify claiming that the same lessons in public school were teaching atheistic creationism?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

It's so very simple. All life we observe today is the creation of solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. That's an inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint. The only one allowed in schools. For now.

Surprise surprise, just the same old assertion without even an attempt to address the problem presented to it by Quatona's experience.

 

[bhsmte]

Surprise surprise, just the same old assertion without even an attempt to address the problem presented to it by Quatona's experience.

Are you surprised?

When one is dug in that deep, not too many options available.

 

[justlookinla]

This is a loaded question, as I'm sure you must realize. It contains the built-in premise that there is any creationist viewpoint at all being presented, a premise which has been roundly refuted by the various testimonies here. Quatona was taught the same thing in both a Catholic and secular setting. Obviously he wasn't being taught "atheistic creationism" by the Jesuits, so how do you justify claiming that the same lessons in public school were teaching atheistic creationism?

The courts will decide. Main thing is for the schools not to present the viewpoint that all of life is the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. That creationist viewpoint must be eliminated in our schools.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The courts will decide. Main thing is for the schools not to present the viewpoint that all of life is the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. That creationist viewpoint must be eliminated in our schools.

Yes yes, the courts will come in and ignore all the evidence just like you. In the meantime, please attempt to directly address this: Quatona was taught the same thing in both a Catholic and secular setting. Obviously he wasn't being taught "atheistic creationism" by the Jesuits, so how do you justify claiming that the same lessons in public school were teaching atheistic creationism?