How were you taught Evolution?

[quatona]

Certain members seem convinced that public schools are teaching "atheistic creationism", i.e. that God is not at all involved in evolution. In my education from elementary to post-secondary, I was never presented with either an affirmation or a denial of God's role in evolution. In other words I was taught the theory of evolution without any atheist or theist metaphysical component.

I was curious as to how typical this is, hence this poll. So, who remembers being taught evolution with:

A. An explicit atheistic metaphysic (God not involved)
B. An explicit theistic metaphysic (God started and/or maintains it)
C. No explicit metaphysical component

As a followup question, Do people think that not explicitly saying that God is behind evolution the same as saying the He isn't behind it?

I went to a Catholic boy school run by Jesuits, and they taught it just the way they taught any other scientific theory: without any metaphysical implications.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I went to a Catholic boy school run by Jesuits, and they taught it just the way they taught any other scientific theory: without any metaphysical implications.

So presumably you don't feel, as ED does, that despite the lack of a metaphysical message it was made "obvious that an intelligent cause is excluded"? Obviously it was a Catholic rather than public school, but are you aware of any differences in the way it was taught to you vs the way public school children were taught?

 

[Kylie]

I went to a Catholic boy school run by Jesuits, and they taught it just the way they taught any other scientific theory: without any metaphysical implications.

Where abouts was that?

 

[quatona]

So presumably you don't feel, as ED does, that despite the lack of a metaphysical message it was made "obvious that an intelligent cause is excluded"?

Of course I didn´t and don´t. I have never understood why - apart from biblical literalists and YECs - evolution is perceived as a threat to theism.

Obviously it was a Catholic rather than public school, but are you aware of any differences in the way it was taught to you vs the way public school children were taught?

Well, later I changed to a public school, so I can compare.
In terms of the topic, there wasn´t a difference: Science was taught in science classes, sports was taught in sports classes, languages in language classes, and comparative religion was taught in religion and philosophy classes (the last, though, with an undeniable bias towards Catholicism - which I think is perfectly ok, seeing that it was a denominational school, in the first place).
Apart from that it needs to be said that those Jesuits were extremely well educated and educating, scientifically. In the last three years of my school career (on the public school) I was basically left with fiddling thumbs, since there was hardly anything new that I hadn´t learned on the Jesuit school already.

 

[quatona]

Where abouts was that?

Hamburg, in the late 60s/early 70s.

 

[Kylie]

Hamburg, in the late 60s/early 70s.

Are you German?

 

[justlookinla]

I went to a Catholic boy school run by Jesuits, and they taught it just the way they taught any other scientific theory: without any metaphysical implications.

Interesting. Were you taught that solely naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form of many many years ago? Or were there other impetuses introduced for the creation of humanity other than solely naturalistic processes?

 

[EternalDragon]

I know what you said, I'm just trying to get some clarification. So do you think that not teaching that God did it is the same thing as teaching that He didn't? If yes, why do you suppose that so many Christians see the evolutionary processes they are taught as the processes God used to create? Doesn't this indicate that one can make one's own metaphysical leap from the raw science provided?

Personally I think those Christians are trying to harmonize man's ideas into the bible. I think it is a (poor) tactic they are trying to use to get a foot in the door to present the gospel. And I believe they are basically rejecting the clear teaching of Genesis.

Yes, God designed life to be self sustaining after creation and able to self repair, adapt somewhat to environmental changes, etc. The common ancestry, dinosaur to a bird, we are all fish, frog to a prince, ape to a man, etc. is all a fantastic, non-scientific story.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Personally I think those Christians are trying to harmonize man's ideas into the bible. I think it is a (poor) tactic they are trying to use to get a foot in the door to present the gospel. And I believe they are basically rejecting the clear teaching of Genesis.

Yes, God designed life to be self sustaining after creation and able to self repair, adapt somewhat to environmental changes, etc. The common ancestry, dinosaur to a bird, we are all fish, frog to a prince, ape to a man, etc. is all a fantastic, non-scientific story.

Sorry, I'm still looking for clarification of your position. Do you think that not teaching that God did it is the same thing as teaching that He didn't?

 

[justlookinla]

Sorry, I'm still looking for clarification of your position. Do you think that not teaching that God did it is the same thing as teaching that He didn't?

Or teaching that solely naturalistic processes did it, without question.

 

[EternalDragon]

Sorry, I'm still looking for clarification of your position. Do you think that not teaching that God did it is the same thing as teaching that He didn't?

I've not been to a science class for a long time but I would think they teach that nature did it, which would naturally exclude special creation by an ID. If you teach that a wrist watch came about naturally, you would obviously be excluding a watchmaker. Thankfully we have a historical, eyewitness record from said ID that we can refer back to.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I've not been to a science class for a long time but I would think they teach that nature did it, which would naturally exclude special creation by an ID. If you teach that a wrist watch came about naturally, you would obviously be excluding a watchmaker. Thankfully we have a historical, eyewitness record from said ID that we can refer back to.

Is that a yes?

 

[lasthero]

I've not been to a science class for a long time

The surprise of the century.

 

[Split Rock]

I've not been to a science class for a long time but I would think they teach that nature did it, which would naturally exclude special creation by an ID. If you teach that a wrist watch came about naturally, you would obviously be excluding a watchmaker. Thankfully we have a historical, eyewitness record from said ID that we can refer back to.

Too bad you guys keep misinterpreting GEN 1-2 as an "historical, eyewitness record."

 

[EternalDragon]

Too bad you guys keep misinterpreting GEN 1-2 as an "historical, eyewitness record."

Um....God spoke directly to Moses. At the burning bush and elsewhere. God directed him what to write. Jesus even pointed to Moses' writings as the word of God. It's all there in black and white.

I think your argument is with God, not with us.

 

[Kitty.]

I've never actually been formally taught evolution. I was home-schooled up until college, so every science class I took was Christian based. I'm currently at a state university studying as a pre-med student, so I'm sure I will be introduced to evolution soon.

 

[Kylie]

I've never actually been formally taught evolution. I was home-schooled up until college, so every science class I took was Christian based. I'm currently at a state university studying as a pre-med student, so I'm sure I will be introduced to evolution soon.

It's a wonderful topic. I love it, and I hope you will too!

 

[Split Rock]

Um....God spoke directly to Moses. At the burning bush and elsewhere. God directed him what to write. Jesus even pointed to Moses' writings as the word of God. It's all there in black and white.

I think your argument is with God, not with us.

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??

 

[Naturalism]

I've not been to a science class for a long time but I would think they teach that nature did it, which would naturally exclude special creation by an ID.

That's right bucko. Naturally occurring processes, that which is empirically testable. Testing a supernatural cause is not possible in science since it's unfalsifiable.

If you teach that a wrist watch came about naturally, you would obviously be excluding a watchmaker.

And what made the watchmaker?

Thankfully we have a historical, eyewitness record from said ID that we can refer back to.

Eyewitness record of magic?

And that is why it's not science.

 

[EternalDragon]

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??

Jesus considered it history and the Jews regard it as history. If you bothered to read Moses' writings you will see where he got it from. God was the eyewitness. God spoke directly to Moses and other prophets.

Now you can choose not to believe what is claimed in writing or believe it. The written historical, eyewitness words remain the same.