How were you taught Evolution?

[AmorFati]

The issue is who/what created humanity. No Christian school teaches humanity was created, using Darwinism as the basis, as taught in our public schools. For anyone to suggest that Christian schools teach creationism in the same manner as public schools simply isn't true.

I think your idiosyncratic use of the term creationism and created might cause unnecessary confusion. Creation isn't a scientific term for evolution. It is a term often used by opponents of evolution for their own theories of divine intervention and manufacture of "kinds." Why confuse people by calling both of those beliefs or processes "creationism" it really adds nothing to your argument except an increased likelyhood of causing misunderstanding.

The schools do teach that the human body evolved ( or in your idiosyncratic meaning of the term was "created") via the process of (neo)darwinian evolution. The same process studied in public schools. They do however have a philosophical/ religious view that ones soul (an immaterial and apparently supernatural aspect of the human being) was a direct and special creation of God. It wasn't the result of evolution whereas the body/ physical organism is.

Public schools teach the same science but don't get into the religious questions due to separation of church and state issues. It's up to students how, if at all, to integrate the science into their religious worldview.

 

[AmorFati]

This article is a little old but I thought it was interesting that Pope John Paul 2 said that "evolution is more than just a theory." It also notes that evolution is taught in Catholic schools:

Pope John Paul II's statement yesterday acknowledging that evolution is ''more than just a theory'' is unlikely to change significantly the teaching of evolution in Roman Catholic schools, where it is already a standard part of the curriculum.

But as the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools has re-emerged as an increasingly contentious issue, the Pope's statement is being viewed as a powerful support for the idea that religious faith and the teaching of evolution in the country's schools can easily coexist.
Pope Shows How Faith And Evolution Coexist - NYTimes.com

 

[quatona]

Put it into a creationist question form. Stick with the issue at hand.

No, with the issue at hand I have tried it often enough, with no avail.
What I need to find out is: are you generally unable to detect structural differences in different wordings, or is this a problem you have only with the issue at hand. As I said, in view of your confusion we need to take it very slow.

An example would be...is humanity solely the creation of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago or is humanity the creation of solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

See the difference?

Of course I do, but that´s not the difference I am talking about.

What I am talking about is the difference between:
Science classes address solely the natural mechanisms that were involved (in said development).
and
Science classes teach that there were solely natural mechanisms at work (in said development).

 

[quatona]

Are you suggesting that Catholic schools teach the worldview that humanity is created solely, completely, totally by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago?

No, for crying out loud.
We suggest that science classes in Catholic schools teach solely the natural mechanisms. Which is substantially different from suggesting that they teach that there were solely natural mechanisms.
The latter would mean teaching a naturalistic worldview, the former does not.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, for crying out loud.
We suggest that science classes in Catholic schools teach solely the natural mechanisms. Which is substantially different from suggesting that they teach that there were solely natural mechanisms.
The latter would mean teaching a naturalistic worldview, the former does not.

I found this article on how the present Pope views the different forms of evolution:

Does the new Pope believe in evolution?

The answer is actually yes. And in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized Darwinian evolution for the past 60 years. It openly rejects Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism saying that it "pretends to be science."
But the Church’s unique take on the theory, what it calls theistic evolution, still shows that Catholics have largely missed the point.

Back in 1950, Pope Pius XII laid out his papal encyclical, “Humani Generis,” in which the Church’s official position on natural selection was laid out. The statement said that there’s no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and evolution. The theory, as articulated by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species, has withstood scientific scrutiny since its publication in 1859 — and the Church does not dispute this.
But — and this is a big but — Catholics can believe in evolution just as long as God’s involvement is acknowledged.
Just what this involvement actually entails has never been made entirely clear, but the Church is adamant on one point: The human soul is a creation of God and not the product of material forces. On this point, the Church will never waver.
Catholics believe that humans are descended from apes, but that we all share a common male ancestor, Adam. He's the lucky guy who got to hand down Original Sin to all his descendants. This means that Catholics don’t believe in polygenism, the idea that humans are descended from a group of early humans.

Interestingly, all humans may be descended from a common female ancestor, the so-called Mitochondrial Eve. But that's science, not Biblical conjecture.

At the same time, Catholics take no issue with the Big Bang theory, along with cosmological, geological, and biological axioms touted by science. The Church rejects the notion that humans can find traces of God's work or his intention by looking for “design signatures” (i.e. specified complexity) in the world around us — a central contention of the ID crowd.
God, says former Vatican astronomer Rev. George Coyne, is "not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."
The previous Pope, Benedict XVI, saw the conflict between creationism and evolution as absurd. He wrote:

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.
​

But it's here where the Church falls flat. This is the classic argument made by all reconciliationists — the idea that religion and Darwinian natural selection can work in harmony together. It’s a “want my cake and eat it too” proposition that largely ignores the potency of Darwin’s dangerous idea as a God killer.

Darwin’s theory provides for a stand alone system. Evolution is fully autonomous process that does not require any guiding “rationality” (Benedict’s term) to function. It’s an agonizingly slow, brutish, and insanely methodical process, but it works.

Moreover, it has given rise to the concept of scientific naturalism — the idea that the material world and all the phenomena we see around us can be explained without having to invoke an architect or overseer. All the evidence currently points to this conclusion, and until science reveals any hint of supernatural meddling — which it has not – we will continue to have to accept naturalism as the ongoing scientific paradigm.

As for the new Pope, Francis I, his position will have to follow those of his predecessors in keeping with the principle of papal infallibility. But like Pius and Benedict, he can elaborate on the Church’s position when he feels it necessary.

The scientists behind Mitochondrial Eve tell us about the "lucky mother" who changed human evolution foreverThe scientists behind Mitochondrial Eve tell us about the "lucky mother" who changed hu...The scientists behind Mitochondrial Eve tell us...

This month marks the 25th anniversary of the discovery of Mitochondrial Eve, a common ancestor of all humanity who helped rewrite the story of human… Read more



5 435 Reply



Discussions from People followed by George DvorskyGeorge Dvorsky’s DiscussionsPopular DiscussionAll replies

 

[quatona]

Thanks for the link.
Of course, the Catholic church (as well as it´s major Christian competitors, at least here in Europe), accept evolution theory. After all, "Christian" isn´t a synonym for "stupid, uneducated, ignorant", even though the vocal American bible belt minority in Christianity do their very best to spread this impression.

Just a short ciritique of the article:

But it's here where the Church falls flat. This is the classic argument made by all reconciliationists — the idea that religion and Darwinian natural selection can work in harmony together. It’s a “want my cake and eat it too” proposition that largely ignores the potency of Darwin’s dangerous idea as a God killer.

Darwin’s theory provides for a stand alone system. Evolution is fully autonomous process that does not require any guiding “rationality” (Benedict’s term) to function. It’s an agonizingly slow, brutish, and insanely methodical process, but it works.

The fact that it doesn´t require any guiding rationality to function doesn´t mean that it is irreconcilabe with a guiding rationality (as the first paragraph claims).

Moreover, it has given rise to the concept of scientific naturalism

And there´s another fallacy.What it "has given rise to" is completely irrelevant for the analysis of what it actually says (which again would be the relevant factor when it comes to the question what it is or isn´t reconcilable with.

 

[biggles53]

The problem for the reconciliationists is the concept of 'universal sin requiring universal salvation'...

If the idea of a 'fall' of mankind is linked to the suggestion of an 'original pair' passing on their sinning ways, how does that square with an acceptance of evolutionary theory...?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

FOR EVERYONE TAUGHT IN RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS

No, for crying out loud.
We suggest that science classes in Catholic schools teach solely the natural mechanisms. Which is substantially different from suggesting that they teach that there were solely natural mechanisms.
The latter would mean teaching a naturalistic worldview, the former does not.

Instead of making another poll, hopefully you and other people with experience as a student or teacher in Christian schools can just respond to this question, though I could do a poll if that's easier.

iS the following definition pulled from wikipedia what you were taught in science class?:

"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" wiki/Darwinism

Obviously it is a basic definition and doesn't mention things like gene flow and genetic drift, but aside from that do people find it to be the same concept they were taught?

 

[bhsmte]

The idea of God "using" evolution for anything strikes me as ridiculous. It would violate more scientific laws than just creating things ex nihilo.

Kinda hard to have a scientific theory, that violates scientific laws.

 

[Armoured]

It would violate more scientific laws than just creating things ex nihilo.

Yeah? Name one?

 

[quatona]

FOR EVERYONE TAUGHT IN RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS



Instead of making another poll, hopefully you and other people with experience as a student or teacher in Christian schools can just respond to this question, though I could do a poll if that's easier.

iS the following definition pulled from wikipedia what you were taught in science class?:

"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" wiki/Darwinism

Obviously it is a basic definition and doesn't mention things like gene flow and genetic drift, but aside from that do people find it to be the same concept they were taught?

I don´t recall that such a general introduction has been made but the wiki-statement seems to be a sufficiently accurate description of what we were taught.
I feel a little uncomfortable with the term "Darwinism" here, though (I don´t think the German equivalent "Darwinismus" has been used, as "-ismus/-ism" is typically not the terminology for a scientific theory.)

 

[MuchWiser]

I don´t recall that such a general introduction has been made but the wiki-statement seems to be a sufficiently accurate description of what we were taught.
I feel a little uncomfortable with the term "Darwinism" here, though (I don´t think the German equivalent "Darwinismus" has been used, as "-ismus/-ism" is typically not the terminology for a scientific theory.)

Darwin was the one who started the ball rolling, science has simply added more and more evidence to his claims.

 

[quatona]

Darwin was the one who started the ball rolling, science has simply added more and more evidence to his claims.

I know.
I am not sure, though, how this addresses what I said. There seems to be a misunderstanding.

 

[MuchWiser]

Darwin was the one who started the ball rolling, science has simply added more and more evidence to his claims.

I know.
I am not sure, though, how this addresses what I said. There seems to be a misunderstanding.

'Darwinism' is an outmoded idea, the basics are still true but science has moved to a point where Darwin would be lost.

 

[quatona]

'Darwinism' is an outmoded idea, the basics are still true but science has moved to a point where Darwin would be lost.

Yes, I know - I don´t understand, though, how this relates to my post, in which I merely pointed out that I don´t recall that the theory - even though ascribed to Darwin - was called "Darwinism" in science class. Just as I don´t recall having been taught "Einsteinism" or "Newtonism".

 

[biggles53]

Yes, I know - I don´t understand, though, how this relates to my post, in which I merely pointed out that I don´t recall that the theory - even though ascribed to Darwin - was called "Darwinism" in science class. Just as I don´t recall having been taught "Einsteinism" or "Newtonism".

I think it's a ploy that aims at isolating the theory as being the work of one individual...rather than recognising it as being the result of painstaking work of thousands of biologists, they attempt to demonise it as 'Darwin's Baby'....

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I don´t recall that such a general introduction has been made but the wiki-statement seems to be a sufficiently accurate description of what we were taught.
I feel a little uncomfortable with the term "Darwinism" here, though (I don´t think the German equivalent "Darwinismus" has been used, as "-ismus/-ism" is typically not the terminology for a scientific theory.)

It is of course an old version of evolutionary theory, but the important thing is that it is still an accurate description of evolutionary theory as far as it goes (more having been added to the theory). The point is that Justlookinla is claiming that the definition I just posted is in fact atheistic creationism. I countered by pointing out that it was being taught in Christian schools. He disagreed, but your response shows us at least one case (and in this context do we really need any more than one?) of a Christian school teaching evolution as a set of natural processes. Christian schools are obviously not in the business of teaching an atheist metaphysic, therefore the definition I posted must not be atheistic creationism as Justa claims. Ideally I'd like more responses before I rub his face in it, but really one example should be sufficient given the argument being made.

 

[biggles53]

It is of course an old version of evolutionary theory, but the important thing is that it is still an accurate description of evolutionary theory as far as it goes (more having been added to the theory). The point is that Justlookinla is claiming that the definition I just posted is in fact atheistic creationism. I countered by pointing out that it was being taught in Christian schools. He disagreed, but your response shows us at least one case (and in this context do we really need any more than one?) of a Christian school teaching evolution as a set of natural processes. Christian schools are obviously not in the business of teaching an atheist metaphysic, therefore the definition I posted must not be atheistic creationism as Justa claims. Ideally I'd like more responses before I rub his face in it, but really one example should be sufficient given the argument being made.

30 to 1...?

Rub away mate.....

 

[Atheos canadensis]

~ I wouldn't characterize the education I've received about evolution thus far at school as being atheistic.

Hey Artemis, would you mind responding to this question?

 

[quatona]

It is of course an old version of evolutionary theory, but the important thing is that it is still an accurate description of evolutionary theory as far as it goes (more having been added to the theory).

I must have been very misunderstandable - since you are now the second poster who feels that my point was about Darwin´s theory being old, updated, modified or something. That was not my point, though.
I was merely hinting to the fact that "-ism" isn´t the usual term for a scientific theory; the term "Darwinism" suggests already that it is rather a philosophical position or an opinion, rather than a scientific theory. I have a nagging suspicion that it was invented by those who don´t accept evolution theory. That was all.

The point is that Justlookinla is claiming that the definition I just posted is in fact atheistic creationism. I countered by pointing out that it was being taught in Christian schools. He disagreed, but your response shows us at least one case (and in this context do we really need any more than one?) of a Christian school teaching evolution as a set of natural processes. Christian schools are obviously not in the business of teaching an atheist metaphysic, therefore the definition I posted must not be atheistic creationism as Justa claims. Ideally I'd like more responses before I rub his face in it, but really one example should be sufficient given the argument being made.

Yes, of course, he keeps beating an already rotten horse.
He is unable or unwilling to grasp the difference between science classes teaching solely natural explanations (which, in my experience, is the accurate description for what is being done in science classes in Christian schools just like in public schools), and science classes teaching that there are solely natural processes involved (which is neither done in Christian nor in public schools).
The latter would indeed qualify as teaching a naturalistic worldview. It wouldn´t belong in science classes, just as teaching any other worldview/religion/philosophy/metaphysics belongs in science classes. And, alas, pretty much everyone here confirms that it isn´t taught.