By homo fuckofftus - 22/05/2015 17:10 - United States - San Diego
Add a comment - Reply to : #
Just pretend a talking snake told you it and they should believe you.
Assuming OP attends a private school, private schools are exempt from being required to hire certified teachers. Private schools can set their own criteria for what a "qualified" teacher is. My step-mother teaches at a private school where a few teachers don't even have bachelor degrees. So it's possible the teacher isn't qualified by public school standards. Which is a disturbing statement.
Modern day humans are actually called homo sapien sapiens. Technically, it is a subgroup of homo sapiens, but there are many other subgroups too. Many of our recent ancestors, Neanderthals included, are homo sapiens too, but they are called homo sapien neanderthalensis. Anyway, although we are a subgroup of homo sapiens, the teacher was probably saying that the rest of the subgroups aren't real, implying that there is no such thing as evolution.
#107 deserves more likes for this comment. He is absolutely right. Homo sapian sapians are a subgroup that evolved from homo sapians, of whom came across the landbridge around 10-15 or so thousand years ago. But, even while she might be implying that evolution is 'fake', we are still homo sapians, so at the end of the day she inevitably still mentioned she doesn't believe in humans.
#107 Or at least no such thing as human evolution. Thanks for the clarification, although I'm guessing the teacher's questions had nothing to do with their understanding of evolutionary sub-groups and everything to do with their complete ignorance about those Latin terms.
I mean I guess people are entitled to their ridiculous beliefs, but what kind of teacher mocks a student like that when they say something that's "wrong". FYL for not getting to learn anything and for having a crappy teacher.
Didn't realise some religious schools could be so subjective....I'd understand to some extent if this were a religious education class but if you're gonna teach something like bio then they should really keep their views out of the syllabus and just teach bio or whatever class OP was in...
What's the point of religious schools? They're clearly not doing the best job educating kids.
Nothing wrong with private schools in general. Many do a great job teaching all subjects, sometimes even better than local public schools. The problem just arises when nutcases are given teaching licenses and they're allowed or encouraged to teach their own personal beliefs, rather than giving students all the facts and allowing students to make up their own minds.
A lot of private schools also happen to be religious schools, such as catholic schools, because you can't really teach religion in classes in public school. Other than having it in a brief section for a world studies class that is. I know there are private schools that aren't religious, but a fair amount are simply because public schools can't really teach religion like the religious private schools would like to
I think it's also important to note that the majority of private schools aren't restricted by their funding nearly as much as public schools and provide a better education. Not only do they have tuition to fall back on, but many get public funding as well. So while many of us may not agree with the purpose of religious schooling, it actually unintentionally creates a pretty great situation. Not only are you surrounded by people of similar socioeconomic status with similar belief systems (so you can be comfortable and focus on your studies), but you also have resources that public schools need to scrape together funding for. EDIT: The "similar" portion came out a bit discriminatory, I simply mean people generally feel more comfortable around people who are like themselves, that's just fact.
I agree that the school OP is going to doesn't sound good. All the Christian schools I went to were great. They even taught us a bit about evolution so we wouldn't lag behind scientifically. They were certainly better at helping individuals learn more than any public school I went to. They are less restricted about meeting a certain standard that they actually go above that standard.
I agree I'm an atheist that went to a religious school. They told 14yr old students not to wear condoms because of their beliefs. Also telling lies such as they don't really protect from HIV and other sexual diseases. I tell you this disgusts me, their basically embracing STDs and early pregnancy
#85, the part of similar beliefs is something I will disagree on. Its a bad idea to expose children to an educational setting where everyone has the same belief system/ideas. Children should be exposed to a setting of diversity and of challenging ideas. The real world is diverse and full of all kinds of people. If people are uncomfortable by those who are different, then I dunno what to say on that. We need a more free thinking society that encourages thought and diversity.
Not to knock on religious people, but show them the evolutionary facts and data and knock some sense into them. There's one thing to just being religious, and another where you're a cunt who shoves beliefs down people's throats and makes fun of anyone who says differently. P.S. Yes teacher, you are a homosapien. I'm sorry to break it to you.
Agree with 38. As much as I believe the vast majority of Christians, in the UK at least, still believe in evolution/science/etc., the REAL crazy ones cannot be saved. They say that the 'evidence' was put there by God as a test of faith. Even I don't know how you argue against that. :/
#56 I agree with you. Evolution is still a theory and there's no real proof on evolutionary explanations that are thought as facts. Rather the opposite, there are a lot of true scientist that believe this life cannot have come from a random explosion and an "organic soup" resulting in the delicate equilibrium and designs. Yes I know I'm not going to be popular with my comment and will be buried. But that's what I believe and feel proud of.
Denying evolution is denying that things can drastically change over time based on stimuli. If you want to see it done, get bacteria and slowly change the environment of it. After some life cycles you'll end up with bacteria that has different properties than the original colony. That's evolution. And for the record, a scientific theory is not equal to the colloquial theory, a scientific theory is something that only happens when something is just about as true as it gets. When every criticism has shown not to hold its weight against it time and time again. So evolution is legit, stop getting your "facts" off of unpublished, unreviewed, religious websites. and you call it "Charle's Darwin's Theory of Evolution" because the scientist who uncovered something so amazing should be credited with his work.
#64, you are part of that subgroup of people who don't know whqt evolution is. Evolution is CHANGE OVER TIME. Evolution is fact, as it happens all the time. HOW it happens is the theory. Genetic drift, natrual selection, directional shift. These are theories of how it happens. Get your facts straight. Lots of things actually support evolution. We know that the Earth had actually been void of oxygen. Glycolysis happens outside the mitochondria for a reason. Earth's first living organisms were anaerobic, meaning they didn't need oxygen to synthesize ATP. I could go on about all the evidence that life originated from a common ancestor, but I won't go there as this is fml and doesn't need to get any more serious.
You are confusing theory and hypothesis. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. A hypothesis means, a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Scientific theory has a very specific definition. It is an assertion about how the universe works that fits within all the evidence currently available that can, in the right circumstances, be disproven, at which point it is discarded or revised to account for the new evidence. You never prove a theory 'true;' at most you see how well it continues to stand up to attempts to disprove it. Evolution is a good scientific theory, though it is still evolving (no pun intended). Problems with the fossil record appear to contraindicate Darwinian gradualism, and there is trouble explaining the mechanisms behind a punctualistic model, as an example. And certainly some evolutionary scientists and teachers have committed intellectually dishonest behavior: the famous black and white moths are an egregious example (the moths, which perch on the undersides of leaves, were glued to bark to imply adaptation not actually in evidence), as were the 'evolutionary stages' of the fetus (complete bs) and the fact that people relaying Darwin's observations of the finches during a drought always seem to leave out the fact that those adaptations disappeared as soon as the rain returned, meaning he was only observing temporary changes within a species and not permanent adaptation into a new one. All of this having been stated, so far the theory of evolution has held up quite well. Creationism, frankly, cannot be considered a scientific theory as advocated by most because it admits no possibility of disproval: for those subscribing to it, it is an article of faith, not a testable explanation. I personally dislike people referring to scientific 'facts.' From a scientific point of view, ALL things are subject to testing, and to revising what we know based on the evidence we gather. And it is not unusual to have competing theories attempting to explain the same things in apparently utterly contradictory ways. However a good, well tested and consistent theory should not be just ignored or discarded as 'just' a theory. Until and unless the theory of evolution DOES manage to get disproven or otherwise an equally resilient and testable alternative is offered, it is the best explanation from a scientific point of view.