How were you taught Evolution?

[justlookinla]

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?

Jesuit or public or whatever, when it's taught that one's creator is solely nature, that's an atheistic viewpoint of one's creator.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Jesuit or public or whatever, when it's taught that one's creator is solely nature, that's an atheistic viewpoint of one's creator.

But that's not what he was taught. He was taught in theology classes that God was the creator and he was taught in science class the evolutionary mechanisms that God used to create. You're trying to argue that people who we know believed God was the creator (as evinced by Quatona's theology classes) were actually teaching atheistic creationism? How could they be implying an atheist metaphysic when they believe the exact opposite?

 

[justlookinla]

But that's not what he was taught. He was taught in theology classes that God was the creator and he was taught in science class the evolutionary mechanisms that God used to create. You're trying to argue that people who we know believed God was the creator (as evinced by Quatona's theology classes) were actually teaching atheistic creationism? How could they be implying an atheist metaphysic when they believe the exact opposite?

I've asked you this before and haven't seen an answer. Do you know of any view taught in school other than the view that all of life we observe today is solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago? If you do, would you please tell us about it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've asked you this before and haven't seen an answer. Do you know of any view taught in school other than the view that all of life we observe today is solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago? If you do, would you please tell us about it?

That is not an accurate description of how evolution is taught in school.

In other words it is a "Have you quit beating your wife, answer yes or no" question. It is a poorly formed question and cannot be answered properly as asked.

 

[justlookinla]

That is not an accurate description of how evolution is taught in school.

In other words it is a "Have you quit beating your wife, answer yes or no" question. It is a poorly formed question and cannot be answered properly as asked.

What is taught in school other than a completely naturalistic mechanism which resulted in all of life we observe today?

Put it in your own words. How did life arise from the single life form from long long ago if not solely by naturalistic mechanisms?

You're beginning to quibble.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I've asked you this before and haven't seen an answer. Do you know of any view taught in school other than the view that all of life we observe today is solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago? If you do, would you please tell us about it?

Oops, you seem to have evaded responding to my post. When you completely ignore the content of a post, it makes it seem like you have no counter argument. Please try again:

But that's not what he was taught. He was taught in theology classes that God was the creator and he was taught in science class the evolutionary mechanisms that God used to create. You're trying to argue that people who we know believed God was the creator (as evinced by Quatona's theology classes) were actually teaching atheistic creationism? How could they be implying an atheist metaphysic when they believe the exact opposite?

As for your question, it is loaded with the premise that any creationism at all is being taught. Until you can support that premise there is no obligation or reason to answer it. Or answer it again, rather. Your plan seems to be to keep asking it until you get the answer you want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is taught in school other than a completely naturalistic mechanism which resulted in all of life we observe today?

Put it in your own words. How did life arise from the single life form from long long ago if not solely by naturalistic mechanisms?

You're beginning to quibble.

Nope, not quibbling. The fact that science says your beliefs about Genesis is wrong has hurt you terribly. The fact that all evidence supports evolution and only evolution hurts you even more. As a result you try to call it "atheistic" but you cannot show why teaching about gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism is not "atheistic" too.

Schools teach a naturalistic approach to how life developed because that is supported by evidence. Do you expect schools to teach ideas in science classes that are not supported by evidence?

 

[justlookinla]

Oops, you seem to have evaded responding to my post. When you completely ignore the content of a post, it makes it seem like you have no counter argument. Please try again:

But that's not what he was taught. He was taught in theology classes that God was the creator and he was taught in science class the evolutionary mechanisms that God used to create. You're trying to argue that people who we know believed God was the creator (as evinced by Quatona's theology classes) were actually teaching atheistic creationism? How could they be implying an atheist metaphysic when they believe the exact opposite?

As for your question, it is loaded with the premise that any creationism at all is being taught. Until you can support that premise there is no obligation or reason to answer it. Or answer it again, rather. Your plan seems to be to keep asking it until you get the answer you want.

Right, I thought there was a reason you were avoiding answering it. This is the creationist question, the creationist viewpoint, which will be examined in the courts in the future. Because you choose to not address the creationist viewpoint, that doesn't mean it's not going to be addressed.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, not quibbling. The fact that science says your beliefs about Genesis is wrong has hurt you terribly. The fact that all evidence supports evolution and only evolution hurts you even more. As a result you try to call it "atheistic" but you cannot show why teaching about gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism is not "atheistic" too.

Schools teach a naturalistic approach to how life developed because that is supported by evidence. Do you expect schools to teach ideas in science classes that are not supported by evidence?

Are you saying that schools teach entirely naturalistic mechanisms are solely the impetuses for the life we observe today?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Right, I thought there was a reason you were avoiding answering it. This is the creationist question, the creationist viewpoint, which will be examined in the courts in the future. Because you choose to not address the creationist viewpoint, that doesn't mean it's not going to be addressed.

Let's try this again. Here is the content of my post that you ignored:

But that's not what he was taught. He was taught in theology classes that God was the creator and he was taught in science class the evolutionary mechanisms that God used to create. You're trying to argue that people who we know believed God was the creator (as evinced by Quatona's theology classes) were actually teaching atheistic creationism? How could they be implying an atheist metaphysic when they believe the exact opposite?

Please address this rather than simply saying the courts will decide.

ETA: I will be happy to address your question when you actually support the premise (creationism is being taught in schools) on which it is based. Unfortunately for you that would entail actually addressing the points I have made above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right, I thought there was a reason you were avoiding answering it. This is the creationist question, the creationist viewpoint, which will be examined in the courts in the future. Because you choose to not address the creationist viewpoint, that doesn't mean it's not going to be addressed.

But the creationist viewpoint has been examined in courts of law. Unless you come up with something new they would have no reason to look at your beliefs again. I mean you could file, but without some new, valid (and you have not come anywhere near that criterion) argument a judge would simply chuck your case back at you before it was accepted for trial.

Judges set great store in precedence. So you are fighting an uphill battle. Not only do you have to show that evolution is wrong, but that the previous judges were wrong somehow.

 

[DerelictJunction]

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

Then produce them.

Oh...wait...you mean they will be produced in court. What is the big case that is being presented? Has a creationist organization initiated a civil suit against a school board somewhere? I haven't heard of one. Can you provide some details about the suit being brought? Who are the litigants? What county/state is involved?

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?

Easy. No creationist viewpoint is being presented in schools today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that schools teach entirely naturalistic mechanisms are solely the impetuses for the life we observe today?

You are getting closer to a correct question.

What they teach is that naturalistic mechanisms causing evolution is all that we have evidence for.

Science classes are evidence based. The theory of evolution is evidence based. If you want something else taught then it is up to your side to find the evidence that supports their beliefs. And there is a process that your evidence has to go through. It must be tried by scientists first to see if the evidence is valid or not. That is done through the means of publishing articles in well respected peer reviewed journals. If you have a new ideas and get it published other scientists elsewhere will submit your idea to independent testing. If it is correct then it is on the way to becoming part of the curriculum.

 

[quatona]

Are you saying that schools teach entirely naturalistic mechanisms are solely the impetuses for the life we observe today?

Well, science is about explanations, not about fancy ideas with no explanatory power.

 

[justlookinla]

You are getting closer to a correct question.

What they teach is that naturalistic mechanisms causing evolution is all that we have evidence for.

Science classes are evidence based. The theory of evolution is evidence based. If you want something else taught then it is up to your side to find the evidence that supports their beliefs. And there is a process that your evidence has to go through. It must be tried by scientists first to see if the evidence is valid or not. That is done through the means of publishing articles in well respected peer reviewed journals. If you have a new ideas and get it published other scientists elsewhere will submit your idea to independent testing. If it is correct then it is on the way to becoming part of the curriculum.

Let's take it one little step at a time.

Is the view taught in school that all of life has a single common ancestor?

 

[justlookinla]

Well, science is about explanations, not about fancy ideas with no explanatory power.

And again...no answer. There's a reason this question, while maybe simplified, will be answered in the courts in the future.

Look for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's take it one little step at a time.

Is the view taught in school that all of life has a single common ancestor?

Ding ding ding!!!

We have a winner. Yes, that is what is taught in school. It looks like there was a winner in the abiogenesis race.

We could go into the evidence for that, but you remember the rules. To see evidence for evolution you first have to learn what evidence is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And again...no answer. There's a reason this question, while maybe simplified, will be answered in the courts in the future.

Look for it.

We are quaking in our boots

Actually I do believe that the creationists are trying to devise some new attack. One thing you have to hand to them is that they don't quit. They may be all terribly wrong and doomed to lose again and again, but that does not stop them.

 

[justlookinla]

Ding ding ding!!!

We have a winner. Yes, that is what is taught in school. It looks like there was a winner in the abiogenesis race.

We could go into the evidence for that, but you remember the rules. To see evidence for evolution you first have to learn what evidence is.

We'll 'discuss' the 'mountains of evidence' later.

Now what, other than solely naturalistic mechanisms, began acting on that single life form to produce another life form different from the original?

 

[bhsmte]

We are quaking in our boots

Actually I do believe that the creationists are trying to devise some new attack. One thing you have to hand to them is that they don't quit. They may be all terribly wrong and doomed to lose again and again, but that does not stop them.

I guess the Dover trial didn't embarrass them enough and they even had scientists trying to make their case for them. Sadly, even a conservative Christian judge, saw through the whole thing, and put them in their place.

The next round, may be even more entertaining.