How were you taught Evolution?

Subduction Zone said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nope, the battle continues....and will continue.

justlookinla said:

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?

Click to expand...

None that we know of. Nor does there seem to be any need for any other forces besides naturalistic ones.

If you want to claim something else the burden of proof is upon you.

justlookinla said:

Nope, the battle continues....and will continue.

Click to expand...

You mean "Yes, the battle continues...."

I said that your side would continue its futile and feeble fight.

Subduction Zone said:

None that we know of. Nor does there seem to be any need for any other forces besides naturalistic ones.

If you want to claim something else the burden of proof is upon you.

Click to expand...

So far, we have solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago, right?

(Now this does sound familiar.)

Atheos canadensis said:

Hmm, I see that Just is trying to divert you into a discussion of origins rather than support his thoroughly dismantled assertion that schools are teaching atheistic creationism.

Click to expand...

Nope, not true. I began with a single life form. Not how did that single life form arise, but the single life form forward.

This isn't about abiogenesis.

Just as another anecdote, I went 5k - 12th grade to a private Christian school. I was taught evolution with no mention of god(s).

justlookinla said:

So far, we have solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago, right?

(Now this does sound familiar.)

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what the evidence supports.

Do you have evidence for anything else?

justlookinla said:

Nope, not true. I began with a single life form. Not how did that single life form arise, but the single life form forward.

This isn't about abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

That's good because abiogenesis is still in the hypothesis stage. How it happened is NOT settled science.

Subduction Zone said:

Yes, that is what the evidence supports.

Do you have evidence for anything else?

Click to expand...

This is what I've been saying over and over. We'll see if that particular creationist view will continue to be taught in schools.

selfinflikted said:

Just as another anecdote, I went 5k - 12th grade to a private Christian school. I was taught evolution with no mention of god(s).

Click to expand...

In the Christian school, while they were teaching evolution, to what did they attribute the creation of humanity? Was it by solely naturalistic mechanisms?

justlookinla said:

This is what I've been saying over and over. We'll see if that particular creationist view will continue to be taught in schools.

Click to expand...

But now you are using bad English again. That is not a "creationist" view. It does not matter how many times you claim it.

You can call "Purple" "Black" but no one will believe if you do that either.

ETA: And since evolution is the only explanation that has any evidence at all supporting it (actually we have mountains of evidence and if you watched the video I linked as the OP in a thread yesterday you would have heard the exact same phrase).

So what is your evidence? In this case without evidence you lose.

Subduction Zone said:

But now you are using bad English again. That is not a "creationist" view. It does not matter how many times you claim it.

You can call "Purple" "Black" but no one will believe if you do that either.

Click to expand...

Humanity didn't exist, now humanity exists. We'll see what the courts call the process.

justlookinla said:

Humanity didn't exist, now humanity exists. We'll see what the courts call the process.

Click to expand...

The answer is obvious. The same that they have called it in the past, evolution.

Atheos canadensis said:

And if he responds (as I'm certain he will) that only natural mechanisms were taught in science class at a Christian school, will you insist anyway that he was being taught atheistic creationism in that Christian school?

On a similar note: Quatona 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?

Click to expand...

Of course. That's the atheistic creationist argument.

Look, I know it's essential in your worldview for there to be a Godless creation and you'd like that taught in the schools. I understand that.

justlookinla

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

Click to expand...

I have been doing some thinking on this and will change the dialog a little and say that I think I can agree with your statement.

Naturalistic mechanisms are solely the impetuses for life as it exists on Earth. I believe that God put these mechanisms in place and ultimately he is the cause of life as it is. God given natural processes are what God uses in his creation.

I also leave open the idea that he can step in and make changes as desired in ways that we cannot detect but that is not part of the discussion since there currently is no emphirical evidence for this.

I think that schools teach only the natural mechanisms for life as they should and leave it open to the individual as to whether to include God which is where that decision should be.

At least in the U.S., if the schools included God in the teaching of science they would be in violation of the Constitution and would have to face expensive lawsuits. So with this and other things in mind, the schools do indeed teach only the natural mechanisms for evolution to explain the diversity of life. Generally, the student doesn't have to agree with it, just know the material presented. There is nothing atheistic or theist in this, just good education policy.

So yes, in my opinion schools teach only or solely the natural processes of evolution. That is where the evidence is and in science class, by law, that is all they are allowed to teach.

To change this either a constitutional amendment to change to nullify or modify the first amendment would be needed which is *very* unlikely or get a Supreme court decision allowing religious causation to be presented in science class. When the other court cases concerning this are considered, this is also not very likely.

Check out these cases

Epperson vs. Arkansas Supreme Court
Edwards vs. Aguillard. Supreme Court
McLean v. Arkansas Federal Court
Kitzmiller v. Dover Federal Court

Every time it has been tried to bring religion into science classes it has been resoundingly defeated in the courts.


So now you have at least one person who agrees that only and solely naturalistic mechanisms for evolution are taught in schools. Why would you expect it to be done differently?


Dizredux