How were you taught Evolution?

[Delphiki]

Right. The particular creationist viewpoint attributes the creation of humanity only, totally, completely, solely to naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. That's the only creationist viewpoint presented in our schools, consequently our children learn that they owe their existence only, totally, completely, solely to naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

That's an inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint. An atheistic worldview of life, an atheistic philosophy of life, being taught our children.

Why can't you admit the obvious?

Do you know the difference between atheistic and secular?

And answer quatona's question.

 

[justlookinla]

Do you know the difference between atheistic and secular?

And answer quatona's question.

Do you know that when God is excluded from the creation of mankind, it's an atheistic creationist viewpoint?

Do you also know that not identifying what/who created humanity doesn't make the question of what/who created humanity go away?

And...what question? Is it addressing the issue of atheistic creationism?

 

[Delphiki]

Do you know that when God is excluded from the creation of mankind, it's an atheistic creationist viewpoint?

God was never excluded from scientific theory. It just wasn't introduced because there was never any evidence or reason to introduce it.

Do you also know that not identifying what/who created humanity doesn't make the question of what/who created humanity go away?

Why do you think it should it go away? Do you have a problem with seeking knowledge?

And...what question? Is it addressing the issue of atheistic creationism?

No. It's addressing your lack of ability to comprehend the scientific theory you are feebly attempting to challenge.

Justllook, do you understand the difference between these two statements:
A gynecologist solely treats women.
and
A gynecologist claims that there are solely women/that solely women need medical treatment.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Do you know that when God is excluded from the creation of mankind, it's an atheistic creationist viewpoint?

Why is it only when God is excluded from the explanation for the development of humankind from a common ancestor that the explanation becomes atheistic?

If God is excluded from religion, doesn't the religion become atheistic?

Why is it that when God is excluded from the explanation for the development of inorganic compounds, that explanation is not atheistic?

This isn't a thread on the humankind's descent from a common ancestor do you can stray from that topic and actually answer the questions.

 

[AmorFati]

My gym class was anti-basket weaving because it never mentioned basket weaving while explaining the required exercises and games! Gym is a worldview without basket weaving. We who love basket weaving should protest it.

 

[justlookinla]

God was never excluded from scientific theory. It just wasn't introduced because there was never any evidence or reason to introduce it.

God is excluded from a certain creationist viewpoint. That's atheistic creationism.

Why do you think it should it go away? Do you have a problem with seeking knowledge?

Not at all. Why do you believe only the atheistic creationist viewpoint should be taught in schools?

No. It's addressing your lack of ability to comprehend the scientific theory you are feebly attempting to challenge.

Dress it up in whatever disguise you wish to label it, it's still atheistic creationism.

 

[selfinflikted]

God is excluded from a certain creationist viewpoint. That's atheistic creationism.

The Theory of Evolution =/= 1) A worldview, and 2) Creationism.

The Theory of Evolution = The theory that best explains biodiversity on the earth.

 

[justlookinla]

Why is it only when God is excluded from the explanation for the development of humankind from a common ancestor that the explanation becomes atheistic?

Are you really asking this question? If creation only, totally, completely and solely by naturalistic mechanisms, then the creationist viewpoint is Godless creationism. Godless. Atheistic.

If God is excluded from religion, doesn't the religion become atheistic?

Sure. Of course, there are various views of God.

Why is it that when God is excluded from the explanation for the development of inorganic compounds, that explanation is not atheistic?

Aren't we limiting our discussion to organic compounds?

This isn't a thread on the humankind's descent from a common ancestor do you can stray from that topic and actually answer the questions.

I try to limit my responses to the topic of the forum, creation and evolution. I'm not always successful, but I try.

 

[selfinflikted]

Justlook: You do realize that when schools teach evolution, they are not teaching creation.

Right?

 

[Delphiki]

God is excluded from a certain creationist viewpoint. That's atheistic creationism.



Not at all. Why do you believe only the atheistic creationist viewpoint should be taught in schools?



Dress it up in whatever disguise you wish to label it, it's still atheistic creationism.

Ok. I'm finished with you. At least I know that you know you're wrong, and are acting like a child. I'm tired of talking to flat-out liars.

 

[AmorFati]

How were you taught evolution?

None of the answers were accurate for me. I was taught evolution in different manners in different environments. In Church when the pastor discussed it he usually mentioned God's involvement in the process (primarily by creating the universe, the laws of nature, and matter in such a way as to lead to formation of life and evolution) in the public school I went to they usually didn't mention God at all, either positively or negatively, because it wasn't their place to indoctrinate kids into religion or discourage them from it.They simply pointed out the natural processes that appear to have taken place and left it up to us if we wanted to posit a god who created the laws of nature, and the matter/energy that the said laws apply to, in such a manner as to lead to that outcome or not. We were also allowed to debate if evolution even took place in some of my science classes and the teachers seemed respectful of our choice to ignore the evidence so long as we could remember the correct answers to the tests. At the time I opposed evolution because I was a fundamentalist Christian and offten spoke out against it at class. My pastor didn't seem to have a problem with it but I did.

 

[MerlinJ]

Right. The particular creationist viewpoint attributes the creation of humanity only, totally, completely, solely to naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. That's the only creationist viewpoint presented in our schools, consequently our children learn that they owe their existence only, totally, completely, solely to naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

That's an inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint. An atheistic worldview of life, an atheistic philosophy of life, being taught our children.

Why can't you admit the obvious?

Flipping terminologies around is cute, but you're conflating metaphysical naturalism with methodological naturalism. Science isn't naturalistic because scientists are convinced that the physical world is the only thing that exists. It's naturalistic because that's the only thing that can be reliably tested. Reality may very well be more than the physical universe, but how are we to verify?

 

[justlookinla]

Ok. I'm finished with you. At least I know that you know you're wrong, and are acting like a child. I'm tired of talking to flat-out liars.

Before you leave, here's a lie to consider.

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. "​

Have a nice day!

 

[justlookinla]

None of the answers were accurate for me. I was taught evolution in different manners in different environments.

How about creationism? What were you taught about how humanity came into existence?

In Church when the pastor discussed it he usually mentioned God's involvement in the process (primarily by creating the universe, the laws of nature, and matter in such a way as to lead to formation of life and evolution) in the public school I went to they usually didn't mention God at all, either positively or negatively, because it wasn't their place to indoctrinate kids into religion or discourage them from it.They simply pointed out the natural processes that appear to have taken place and left it up to us if we wanted to posit a god who created the laws of nature, and the matter/energy that the said laws apply to, in such a manner as to lead to that outcome or not.

Were you taught that the only mechanisms which created all life from a single life form of long long ago solely, completely and totally natural mechanisms. Or were you taught there were mechanisms other than naturalistic mechanisms which created all of life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago?

We were also allowed to debate if evolution even took place in some of my science classes and the teachers seemed respectful of our choice to ignore the evidence so long as we could remember the correct answers to the tests.

LOL. You can have whatever view you wish, but if you don't answer according to an entirely naturalistic viewpoint, you'll fail.

Ok. I understand.

At the time I opposed evolution because I was a fundamentalist Christian and offten spoke out against it at class. My pastor didn't seem to have a problem with it but I did.

Today, to what do you attribute your existence as a life form in the evolutionary process?

 

[Dizredux]

Before you leave, here's a lie to consider.

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. "​

I still don't understand your objections to that statement. It says nothing about "solely" or "only". To me it is a reasonably accurate description of evolution. A little limited in scope perhaps but not inaccurate.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

I still don't understand your objections to that statement. It says nothing about "solely" or "only". To me it is a reasonably accurate description of evolution. A little limited in scope perhaps but not inaccurate.

Dizredux

Pointing out that it doesn't use those specific words does not mean that the statement isn't suggesting that only, solely, naturalistic mechanisms are responsible for all life we observe today. That's the only explanation presented in the statement, nothing else is needed, nothing else is considered....only, solely naturalistic processes are responsible for humanity is the only conclusion one can make.

 

[florida2]

God is excluded from a certain creationist viewpoint. That's atheistic creationism.



Not at all. Why do you believe only the atheistic creationist viewpoint should be taught in schools?



Dress it up in whatever disguise you wish to label it, it's still atheistic creationism.

I was also taught athiestic gravity, athiestic chemistry...

In a science class, you can't teach ID or whatever version of creationism you subscribe to - there's no evidence for such supernatural intervention. As soon as there is, let us know and it'll be on the science curriculum.

Teach about ID and creationism and all manner of different religious ideas on the creation of the world all you like in religious education classes. I really don't see what your point or problem is.

 

[AmorFati]

How about creationism? What were you taught about how humanity came into existence?

That I learned about mostly through self study. Books that attacked the scientific basis of evolution and later books that explained creationism from a Biblical and patristic (Church Fathers) basis.

Were you taught that the only mechanisms which created all life from a single life form of long long ago solely, completely and totally natural mechanisms.

At school? The actual genesis of life isn't part of the theory of evolution because evolution applies to already living entities. It was some years back but I do remember a few hypotheses being presented on how life possibly formed but it wasn't a major part of the text book or class and didn't seem to be too emphatically stated. In other words there was still question on how exactly it happened from a scientific standpoint and that was noted in the book.

Or were you taught there were mechanisms other than naturalistic mechanisms which created all of life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago?

Like the evolutionary process was being divinely guided at each step via supernatural intervention? At school that wasn't taught. At school we just discussed the natural processes that appear to have taken place based on the evidence. Science doesn't study the supernatural and if supernatural things take place that's for a different field to investigate and discuss.

My pastor didn't appear to teach that either. It was more that God created the initial conditions via creation of the universe / big bang that lead to such a process naturally occurring.

LOL. You can have whatever view you wish, but if you don't answer according to an entirely naturalistic viewpoint, you'll fail.

You simply had to show that you understand what the scientific theory teaches you don't have to agree with it. Without tests it's hard to tell if the student paid attention and understands what the theory expresses.

Today, to what do you attribute your existence as a life form in the evolutionary process?

I'm a Pandeist and a naturalist if that helps. God became the universe. In some ways my views are similar to those of my old Lutheran pastor in terms of evolution and how it's possible though.

 

[justlookinla]

That I learned about mostly through self study. Books that attacked the scientific basis of evolution and later books that explained creationism from a Biblical and patristic (Church Fathers) basis.

How about the scientific basis of the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago?

At school? The actual genesis of life isn't part of the theory of evolution because evolution applies to already living entities. It was some years back but I do remember a few hypotheses being presented on how life possibly formed but it wasn't a major part of the text book or class and didn't seem to be too emphatically stated. In other words there was still question on how exactly it happened from a scientific standpoint and that was noted in the book.

The issue isn't about abiogenesis.

Like the evolutionary process was being divinely guided at each step via supernatural intervention? At school that wasn't taught. At school we just discussed the natural processes that appear to have taken place based on the evidence. Science doesn't study the supernatural and if supernatural things take place that's for a different field to investigate and discuss.

At school, was there any impetus presented for the complexity and variety of life we observe today other than creation by totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

My pastor didn't appear to teach that either. It was more that God created the initial conditions via creation of the universe / big bang that lead to such a process naturally occurring.

Ok.

You simply had to show that you understand what the scientific theory teaches you don't have to agree with it. Without tests it's hard to tell if the student paid attention and understands what the theory expresses.

Right, for the test though, you had to give what one might consider a wrong answer concerning creationism in order to pass the test which was based on the view that all of life we observe today is the result of only, solely, totally naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

I'm a Pandeist and a naturalist if that helps. God became the universe. In some ways my views are similar to those of my old Lutheran pastor in terms of evolution and how it's possible though.

Sorta a Scott Adams, God's Debris, viewpoint?

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

I still don't understand your objections to that statement. It says nothing about "solely" or "only". To me it is a reasonably accurate description of evolution. A little limited in scope perhaps but not inaccurate.

Just

Pointing out that it doesn't use those specific words does not mean that the statement isn't suggesting that only, solely, naturalistic mechanisms are responsible for all life we observe today. That's the only explanation presented in the statement, nothing else is needed, nothing else is considered....only, solely naturalistic processes are responsible for humanity is the only conclusion one can make.

It may be suggesting this to you but you, as far as I can tell, seem to be the only one feeling this. I have never run into anyone else proposing anything like you do.

The simple fact though is that the statement above does not support your thesis.

Add to the fact that many people here have told you that your version is not being taught in school. I could have missed it but I don't think I have seen anyone agreeing with you.

Is there any even remote possibility that you might be wrong?

Dizredux