How were you taught Evolution?

[justlookinla]

Dizredux

Just 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

I've been wrong and changed my mind about lots of things in my life.

I don't think I'm wrong on this though. As I pointed out before, the courts are going to decide if there is a form of creationism being taught in our schools. Not sure when that's going to happen, but it's in the works.

Maybe I'll be convinced otherwise then.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've been wrong and changed my mind about lots of things in my life.

I don't think I'm wrong on this though. As I pointed out before, the courts are going to decide if there is a form of creationism being taught in our schools. Not sure when that's going to happen, but it's in the works.

Maybe I'll be convinced otherwise then.

Look, trust me, from personal experience being willing to admit being wrong rather than hanging on to ideas is life changing. It might be hard at first, but after a few times it gets way easier and it lifts some stress off.

 

[AmorFati]

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

Creation in terms of direct supernatural intervention? Usually the pro creation books I've read try to scientifically refute darwinian evolution and then state that without such a process supernatural intervention wins by default. I've never seen a realistic positive scientific basis haven been given for interventionism.

Or by creation do mean evolution from a nonhuman ancestor? Some of the evidence for that was presented at my high school.

"The issue isn't about abiogenesis. "
Ok

"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?"

Evolution was the only scientific mechanism discussed. No other mechanism has been scientifically verified at all let alone to the conclusive degree evolution has.

"Right, for the test though, you had to give what one might consider a wrong answer....?"

Yes, that happens all the time on a variety of issues. We don't refrain from teaching science (or history, etc..) simply because some of the students happen to disagree with it.

Say a student is given a science test that asks for the earth's shape and the student answers that it is flat. He "knows" it is flat because his religions holy book mentions angels holding the four corners of the earth. Would that be grounds to cease teaching the scientific answer to the world's shape just because a student disagrees with it?

What about religions that teach alien UFO intervention in history? Should we not teach mainstream history to prevent students of this religion from having to answer history questions in a manner they consider wrong

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

Not sure. Never read any of his works. From what I gather I don't agree with the reason he gave for creation though. My views are more influenced by a modernized take on Stoicism.

 

[quatona]

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?

Because it´s incorrect, and I am doing my best to demonstrate it to you; of course, this requires you to show a minimum of cooperation. Sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating the same mantra over and over won´t help you understand why I don´t admit your point.
Please answer my question from my post #239. It is important for me in order to learn whether you have a general inability to understand the crucial distinction or whether your understanding only leaves you when acknowledging the distinction proves that your point is a dead horse.

 

[bhsmte]

Look, trust me, from personal experience being willing to admit being wrong rather than hanging on to ideas is life changing. It might be hard at first, but after a few times it gets way easier and it lifts some stress off.

Admitting you are wrong is a sign of strength. Some though, don't have a psyche that allows this to happen.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

What Christian denomination are/were your parents, if you don't mind me asking.
I wonder what the percentage of Christian home-schoolers taught any evolution........

Thanks

http://www.christianforums.com/t7735596/#post65804159
home school

Does anyone have middle or high schoolers in homeschool? If so, how are they doing academically and socially?
I have a middle schooler since Feb and her grades have improved.
thanks

Just for the record, the statistic say that homeschooled children are actually more likely to have fathers with advanced degrees, score better both in school and college, have a higher percentage of graduating college, (all regardless, by the way, of their parent's income, education, or the amount spent on their education) and score better on tests of maturity, socialization, etc.

Just in case we're interested in facts rather than "Well I have a friend who I know on Facebook who's sister home schools and her kids, from what I saw on their Livejournal…"

 

[justlookinla]

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.

?

Because it´s incorrect, and I am doing my best to demonstrate it to you; of course, this requires you to show a minimum of cooperation. Sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating the same mantra over and over won´t help you understand why I don´t admit your point.
Please answer my question from my post #239. It is important for me in order to learn whether you have a general inability to understand the crucial distinction or whether your understanding only leaves you when acknowledging the distinction proves that your point is a dead horse.

I understand the distinction between the statement that humanity is solely the creation of naturalistic mechanisms and the statement that humanity is the creation of solely naturalistic mechanisms, if that's what you're asking.

The first statement is in error due to the fact there are life forms created other than humanity, the second statement is in error because humanity wasn't created only by naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[Kylie]

the second statement is in error because humanity wasn't created only by naturalistic mechanisms.

And your evidence for this claim is what?

 

[Kylie]

I've been wrong and changed my mind about lots of things in my life.

I don't think I'm wrong on this though. As I pointed out before, the courts are going to decide if there is a form of creationism being taught in our schools. Not sure when that's going to happen, but it's in the works.

Maybe I'll be convinced otherwise then.

How about you start by defining what "creationism" actually means?

 

[justlookinla]

And your evidence for this claim is what?

No evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

How about you start by defining what "creationism" actually means?

Lets take a real world example. Humanity didn't exist, now it exists. What/who created humanity? Solely naturalistic mechanisms? Something else?

 

[Kylie]

Lets take a real world example. Humanity didn't exist, now it exists. What/who created humanity? Solely naturalistic mechanisms? Something else?

So you are claiming that if something comes into existence, the only possible way for it to happen is for it to be created?

 

[justlookinla]

So you are claiming that if something comes into existence, the only possible way for it to happen is for it to be created?

Again, sticking with actual real world examples, humanity didn't exist...now humanity exists. Why? How?

 

[Kylie]

No evidence.

And if you have no evidence at all, why do you think it's a valid position to hold?

 

[Kylie]

Again, sticking with actual real world examples, humanity didn't exist...now humanity exists. Why? How?

Why are you avoiding the question?

Are you saying that the only way for something to exist is if some other thing created it?

 

[justlookinla]

And if you have no evidence at all, why do you think it's a valid position to hold?

It's a faith-based position dependent upon my experience with God and scripture

Others have a faith-based position that humanity was created entirely by naturalistic processes.

 

[justlookinla]

Why are you avoiding the question?

Are you saying that the only way for something to exist is if some other thing created it?

I'm not avoiding the real world question of what/who created humanity. Why not simply address a relevant question concerning our existence?

 

[Kylie]

It's a faith-based position dependent upon my experience with God and scripture

Others have a faith-based position that humanity was created entirely by naturalistic processes.

So then you are claiming that there is no evidence for the scientific point of view?

 

[justlookinla]

So then you are claiming that there is no evidence for the scientific point of view?

I'm claiming, as I have for quite a while now, that there is no evidence for the creationist viewpoint that humanity was created entirely, solely, completely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

 

[biggles53]

Oh look....it's now 28 to ZERO who state that the teaching of evolution is devoid of any atheism...!