How were you taught Evolution?

[Atheos canadensis]

To do that would require modification of the phrase. As it stands, there is only one impetus where all life (that includes creating humanity from non-humanity) is the result of.....now here comes the one single solitary, the only, sole reason.....naturalistic processes. Nothing else. No other impetus. The only impetus needed, the only impetus which is true, the only impetus considered is the one single solitary impetus....natural mechanisms.

Correct. A denial of any other forces cannot be gleaned from that phrase without altering it as you do in almost every post.

Direct answer please: Do you understand that there is a major difference between teaching only the natural processes by which the current biota arose and teaching that the current biota arose only by natural processes? Yes or no?

Can you allow discussion on how those Christians reconcile the issue of only, solely naturalistic processes creating life with scripture?
Well, it's going to be discussed no matter if you like or not. If you don't wish to discuss it, I suggest not responding.

Sure, discuss away. Of course it's not so much discussion as it is you insisting that the definition you've posted is irreconcilable with that Bible quote. The fact that Christians accept both doesn't seem to have any effect on that delusion.

 

[justlookinla]

It happened by evolution. This we know from scientific study. It could be that evolution is a divinely ordained and sustained process, but there's no empirical evidence for that.

Right, God isn't needed or required. That's the message to the children; you're without a doubt, without question, the creation of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes.

That's what I've been saying for several days now. How did humanity result from non-humanity? Only one answer, kiddos. By only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Like it or not, that's a creationist worldview being taught in our schools and will be challenged in the courts.

 

[Dizredux]

No. I don´t know how many times I need to answer this question.

What other processes, other than naturalistic processes, were taught which were part of the creation of all life? (Not abiogenesis)

You have been asked this a number of times but never answered to my recollection.

I and others have asked what other *processes* would you like taught as an alternative? I really don't think you have ever answered this. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me and show your response.

Dizredux

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Right, God isn't needed or required. That's the message to the children; you're without a doubt, without question, the creation of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes.

That's what I've been saying for several days now. How did humanity result from non-humanity? Only one answer, kiddos. By only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Like it or not, that's a creationist worldview being taught in our schools and will be challenged in the courts.

As far as I'm concerned, God isn't required because I believe that the natural processes are not governed supernaturally. But that doesn't preclude belief that those natural processes are governed supernaturally. And you have made the unjustified leap from the point that God isn't necessarily required to stating that God is without a doubt not involved. By the way, thanks for appending your little fantasy about this impending court case; it always makes me chuckle.

 

[justlookinla]

Correct. A denial of any other forces cannot be gleaned from that phrase without altering it as you do in almost every post.

The only editing to the definition is by those who claim it allows for non-naturalistic impetuses in the creation of all life.

Direct answer please: Do you understand that there is a major difference between teaching only the natural processes by which the current biota arose and teaching that the current biota arose only by natural processes? Yes or no?

Nope, this isn't a yes or no question. Yes is a teaching of natural processes and there is also the teaching that all life we observe today is only, completely, totally, solely by those natural processes, if that's what you're asking.

 

[justlookinla]

You have been asked this a number of times but never answered to my recollection.

I and others have asked what other *processes* would you like taught as an alternative? I really don't think you have ever answered this. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me and show your response.

Dizredux

Yes, I've answered several times. Once more, creationism shouldn't be taught in schools including atheistic creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

As far as I'm concerned, God isn't required because I believe that the natural processes are not governed supernaturally. But that doesn't preclude belief that those natural processes are governed supernaturally. And you have made the unjustified leap from the point that God isn't necessarily required to stating that God is without a doubt not involved. By the way, thanks for appending your little fantasy about this impending court case; it always makes me chuckle.

Anyone can believe anything, the issue is concerning the one creationist worldview being taught in our schools today, atheistic creationism.

What have I appended?

 

[sfs]

I'm going to assume you exist, I hope that makes you happy.

Great. Now, are you willing to acknowledge that I actually believe what I say I believe?

Now, would you please point out, in the phrase "all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations" where there is acknowledgement of anything other than only, solely, completely, naturalistic processes?

There isn't. There is also no acknowledgement of the existence of mandolins, of grapefruit or of the infield fly rule. The list of things that phrase does not acknowledge is very long. It makes no reference to the sovereignty of God, even though that's part of the Christian world view. It makes no reference to DNA, or to balancing selection, or genetic drift, even though these are all part of evolution. Drawing conclusions from what the statement doesn't say is insane.

You're seemingly wishing to modify the definition.

I gave the definition I accept. Your own definition -- the one you keep trying to shove into everyone else's mouths, even though every single person here seems to reject it -- is your problem.

 

[Dizredux]

Yes, I've answered several times. Once more, creationism shouldn't be taught in schools including atheistic creationism.

Either you don't understand the question or you are avoiding answering it.

What do you think should be taught?

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Great. Now, are you willing to acknowledge that I actually believe what I say I believe?

Of course. I'm simply attempting to reconcile the viewpoint that humanity was created from non-humanity by only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms.

There isn't.

Exactly.

There is also no acknowledgement of the existence of mandolins, of grapefruit or of the infield fly rule. The list of things that phrase does not acknowledge is very long.

Mandolins, grapefruit or the infield fly rule aren't creative mechanisms or powers.

It makes no reference to the sovereignty of God, even though that's part of the Christian world view. It makes no reference to DNA, or to balancing selection, or genetic drift, even though these are all part of evolution. Drawing conclusions from what the statement doesn't say is insane.

What the statement eliminates is any impetus for creation other than naturalistic impetuses.

I gave the definition I accept. Your own definition -- the one you keep trying to shove into everyone else's mouths, even though every single person here seems to reject it -- is your problem.

I'm simply attempting to understand how you can reconcile the statement which allows only one creative mechanism for creation with scripture which indicates there are other impetuses involved.

 

[justlookinla]

Either you don't understand the question or you are avoiding answering it.

What do you think should be taught?

Dizredux

Science. Not creationism.

 

[Kylie]

You betcha. No other impetus is allowed for the creation of humanity from non-humanity but...only....completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Then you are being dishonest. You are putting it in there becaue you claim that evolution and common descent is atheistic, but then you use that "only" as proof it is atheistic. You are tampering with the evidence! You are being dishonest!

There is no space for X...or Y....or Z. There is only space for A (Atheistic creationism).

Lots of people - including the Catholic Church - disagree with you.

 

[justlookinla]

Then you are being dishonest. You are putting it in there becaue you claim that evolution and common descent is atheistic, but then you use that "only" as proof it is atheistic. You are tampering with the evidence! You are being dishonest!

Nope, just the opposite. I'm not tampering with the definition of Darwinism, I'm only pointing out what it's teaching.

Lots of people - including the Catholic Church - disagree with you.

How many times do I have to post the fact that the Catholic Church doesn't believe in a Godless creation?

From catholic.com.......

"Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. "​

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The only editing to the definition is by those who claim it allows for non-naturalistic impetuses in the creation of all life.

And by you every time you insist that it is saying "solely, only etc etc".

Nope, this isn't a yes or no question. Yes is a teaching of natural processes and there is also the teaching that all life we observe today is only, completely, totally, solely by those natural processes, if that's what you're asking.

Sorry, you seem to have missed a word or two there. Were you agreeing that there is a difference between the statement that we were created by natural processes and the statement that we were created by natural processes and nothing else?

Anyone can believe anything, the issue is concerning the one creationist worldview being taught in our schools today, atheistic creationism.

What have I appended?

Indeed, anyone can believe what they want. The reason for this is that evolution as taught in schools allows for both a theistic and atheistic metaphysical leap. That's what all these christian posters are telling you.

I say "appended" because it always seems like an afterthought when you just throw in your amusing faith that the courts are going to come charging to your rescue to stomp out the imaginary scourge of atheism in science class.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Of course. I'm simply attempting to reconcile the viewpoint that humanity was created from non-humanity by only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms....I'm simply attempting to understand how you can reconcile the statement which allows only one creative mechanism for creation with scripture which indicates there are other impetuses involved.

Hmm, it's almost as if the supposed conflict between the wiki definition and your quoted scripture is only in your head. The Christians responding to you see no such conflict. In fact none of the Christians posting here, excluding those who believe in literal 7 day creation, see any conflict between that definition and scripture. But for some reason you're convinced that all of them are wrong and you are the only enlightened one.

 

[justlookinla]

And by you every time you insist that it is saying "solely, only etc etc".

That's due to the fact that's all which is presented in the definition. If you can find an impetus other than and only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic impetus, please point it out. Of course, you're not going to do that.

Sorry, you seem to have missed a word or two there. Were you agreeing that there is a difference between the statement that we were created by natural processes and the statement that we were created by natural processes and nothing else?

Depends on if you're referring to the definition of Darwinism or not. Some claim that humanity was created from non-humanity by natural processes and other impetuses, which isn't Darwinist creationism, while Darwinist creationism claims that humanity (part of all species) was created by natural processes and nothing else.

Indeed, anyone can believe what they want. The reason for this is that evolution as taught in schools allows for both a theistic and atheistic metaphysical leap. That's what all these christian posters are telling you.

You're claiming that the explanation for all life existing today isn't presented in schools as being the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago? If not, what other impetuses are included in the creation of all life, other than naturalistic impetuses?

I say "appended" because it always seems like an afterthought when you just throw in your amusing faith that the courts are going to come charging to your rescue to stomp out the imaginary scourge of atheism in science class.

It's not to "my rescue", it's to the rescue of our children who are taught Godless creationism.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

That's due to the fact that's all which is presented in the definition. If you can find an impetus other than and only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic impetus, please point it out. Of course, you're not going to do that.

Because if it mentioned forces other than natural, scientifically explorable forces, you would no longer be teaching a scientific theory. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that a scientific theory by definition cannot posit supernatural influence? By its very nature a scientific theory cannot discuss forces that cannot be investigated scientifically.

Depends on if you're referring to the definition of Darwinism or not. Some claim that humanity was created from non-humanity by natural processes and other impetuses, which isn't Darwinist creationism, while Darwinist creationism claims that humanity (part of all species) was created by natural processes and nothing else.

This is a simple question and your refusal to answer it directly indicates that you understand the point and the problem it causes for your premise. Come on. Is the same message conveyed by stating the natural processes by which we were created as by stating that only those processes exist?

You're claiming that the explanation for all life existing today isn't presented in schools as being the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago? If not, what other impetuses are included in the creation of all life, other than naturalistic impetuses?

Indeed. Only natural mechanisms are being taught because only natural mechanisms are in the purview of science classes. Including supernatural impetuses in the lesson would remove it from the realm of science. Do you understand this?

It's not to "my rescue", it's to the rescue of our children who are taught Godless creationism.

Whatever. It's a pipe dream either way, and an unnecessary one: all Christian posters here (excluding YECs like ED) have averred that the theory they were taught in their evil atheist science classes did not conflict with their faith. Doesn't seem like the children are in danger.

 

[EternalDragon]

Hmm, it's almost as if the supposed conflict between the wiki definition and your quoted scripture is only in your head. The Christians responding to you see no such conflict. In fact none of the Christians posting here, excluding those who believe in literal 7 day creation, see any conflict between that definition and scripture. But for some reason you're convinced that all of them are wrong and you are the only enlightened one.

Whether you believe the bible or not, the scripture represents a 6 day, 24 hours each, creation week. It is what we base our work week on. There is no reason for any Christians to believe otherwise unless they are trying to compromise the scriptures.

 

[sfs]

Of course. I'm simply attempting to reconcile the viewpoint that humanity was created from non-humanity by only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms.

Then you're doing a spectacularly bad job of it. I'm not interested in your anti-atheist crusade. I'm interested in reconciling the viewpoint that "all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations" with Christianity, and I have no trouble doing that. Do you acknowledge that there are Christians who believe in God as creator and who also believe all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations? Because it's clearly true.

Mandolins, grapefruit or the infield fly rule aren't creative mechanisms or powers.

Quite true. Creative powers, on the other hand, aren't musical instruments or edible. Lots of things aren't other things. Why this should interest me is not obvious.

What the statement eliminates is any impetus for creation other than naturalistic impetuses.

It also eliminates lots of impetuses for "creation" (that is, for the creation of diversity) that are explicitly part of the theory. So what? Where did you get the bizarre idea that a brief statement of a scientific theory should state everything possible that people might believe about it? Your argument here seems truly insane.

I'm simply attempting to understand how you can reconcile the statement which allows only one creative mechanism for creation with scripture which indicates there are other impetuses involved.

No, I'm sorry, but you're clearly not interested in understanding how I reconcile them. If you were, you would pay some slight attention to what I write about precisely that subject, rather than simply trying to define my views out of existence.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Whether you believe the bible or not, the scripture represents a 6 day, 24 hours each, creation week. It is what we base our work week on. There is no reason for any Christians to believe otherwise unless they are trying to compromise the scriptures.

Cool story ED.