Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks

Post Reply New Topic

One of my sons therapists tried to teach my son religion, I came down on her like a brick s**t house, she got fired.
One of the teachers at my sons school tried the same last year, I forced them to place him in another class and for that teacher not to work with him any more. and its sounding like yet another is trying this year and its ticking me off, I done complained to the principle and so far no more complaints from my son. I know when this stuff happens because my son comes home complaining, he don't want to be exposed that s**t too.

You have my sympathy. Forcing religion on people is gradually declining throughout the world, but still strongly persists in the US and Muslim countries. Back in the UK in the 1970's at the age of 11 I was beaten by the head teacher with a cane for refusing to pray aloud to God. Trying to thrash Christianity into me won't work. I'll make up my own mind about religions thank you.

It is scandalous that creationism of various flavours is trying to be pushed into science classes in America. Those of us in Europe don't know whether to laugh about the American education system or be concerned that America it is apparently run by religious nut-jobs.

Me and my son are science people, he knows what religion is, we watch documentary after documentary about world history and religious history (of all kinds), archeology, nature, physics, astronomy , and all the sciences. we don't need someone trying to choke it down him.

Nah, not really. It shows confidence in the veracity of peer-reviewed scientific studies from research teams in good standing.

Who are these boogeymen who "reject God"?

Scientific researchers do not 'reject god'. They just ignore god as irrelevent.

And thats what they have to do. If your task is to ask why Hurricane Sandy hit Jearsy you dont invoke God for the very reason you yourself stated: that you cant get into God's head. And even if you could psychoanalize God to find out why he smote Jearsy it wouldnt be science, it would be theology.

And even if they did actively 'reject god' - how is 'rejecting god' showing a 'religous bias'?

If rejecting God is 'pushing religion'- then what exactly does 'not pushing religion' look like?

Mentioning God is religion, not mentioning god is religion. So how exactly do you NOT mention religion?

[img][800:563]http://i1326.photobucket.com/albums/u660/2lucky4snuffy/0d4e065bc4284254ad3dbd693a44b75d_zpscbea44c9.jpg[/img]

Thats their point, they don't want our excuses or answers of No, they just want to bug into your life and the lives of our children and for you to accept Their excuses as fact. they wont listen to your answers, they don't want to. reasoning with them is mute.

Not true. Being "abundantly clear [in the minds of any given number of scientists] that humans have evolved" does not prove there is no such thing as intelligent design and/or a creator behind anything or everything.


I do not have any such case to present, and I have never claimed to have one. I started this thread for no other purpose than to ask atheistic scientists to acknowledge their bias since science can only be used to rationalize atheism, not to prove it true and/or valuable.

Science is simply science, and is neither linked to atheism nor to religion. O_o

Being an atheist, does not prevent people from believing into unscientific stuff as dowsing or homeopathy. ^^

Being atheist simply means not to believe in the existence of an god. But only because atheist people agree with scientists by accident in one stuff, that does not mean that being atheist is automatically linked with science. I know tons of atheists, that believe in tons of unscientific stuff...if I ever hear the word chakra or globuli again from an midwife, I will whip her with an wet pampers.

Any kind of theory and thinking of religion, including being atheistist, simply should have no impact in the school at all. School and teachers are responsible for teaching about scientific knowledge. For teaching about religion there are churches and priests. There is no need to mix that. A math teacher, not mentioning religion and simply teaching math, is neither benefitting religion or atheism, he is simply doing his job = teaching math according to the actual scientific knowledge of the people, being math experts.

More nonsense. You can't prove that you aren't abducted by fairies every night when you fall asleep then returned to your bed prior to you awakening. However, I see no reason to entertain that idea until/unless some evidence is provided to support that suggestion. You just don't understand the basic principles of science, that much is ample clear and you have absolutely nothing relevant to say - but you say it anyway. So I leave you to your delusions.

I think most people acknowledge that "science cannot prove atheism". Why, then, did you talk about evolution? Science can and has proven evolution to be true.

Whilst science has not and will not prove that there is no deity "pulling the strings", it does prove that either humans have slowly evolve over many millions of years OR the deity has deliberately made the world appear much older than it is. One of those is more likely simply because it doesn't appeal to a deity for whom there is very little evidence.

Additionally, if evolution is divinely guided, you have to raise questions of the deity's nature. Clearly, it is not loving, otherwise it would not design a world that operates by tearing all living things apart. Clearly, it is not omniscient, or it wouldn't have so many poor designs (an obvious example is the vestigial hairs that cover most of the human body but have no function).

That might be ideal, but it is not realistic since public schools are secular and driven more by politics and economics than by moral principle...and I do not say that to be condemning.


How so? Who but the theologian ever might have said it had to be one or the other?

I'm not sure if you've noticed but you keep moving the goalposts of your argument. You started the above chain of "not so" by arguing for the sudden creation of humans but by the time you reach the above comment you are arguing for some vague intelligent designer behind everything (which encompasses many views beyond YEC or OEC creationism).

Pick an argument, show your evidence and let's see what you've got.

That isn't exactly true. Natural mechanisms have been found that propel matter to self organise in the manner of evolution. These mechanisms are being better understood in incredible detail every day and they centre around organic molecules natural ability to arrange themselves into highly complex structures and for protein molecules to fold into 3D structures etc. All of these mechanisms follow simple mathematical principles of electrostatic attraction and repulsion and formation of arrangements in the lowest energy states. These organisational properties combined with principles of positive and negative feedback drive evolution. Non of these mechanisms involve any hidden puppeteer pulling mystical strings.

It is exactly the same thing as my example about "Intelligent Lightning". The physics is well known regarding lightning strikes and while we can't prove that lightning isn't caused by Zeus having a bad day, nobody would take such an explanation seriously, especially without some evidence to support it; yet Lee seems unable to grasp this fundamental fact. If creationists or those supporting so called intelligent design want to be taken seriously they have to provide evidence in support of their ideas; and to date they have been sorely lacking. It is absolutely impossible that humans first appeared as they are now - creationists have lost that battle, totally and utterly decisively many years ago. Now there are the Christian apologists who realise that there is no fighting evolution for the simple reason that evolution is a fact. It has happened and is still happening today and it is also a fact all life on the planet evolved from simple organisms BUT they find this distasteful to their world view; so they invent the concept of Intelligent Design and that there is a god pulling some invisible strings guiding evolution. However, they provide zero evidence that this is the case and quite the contrary, the physical evidence is that there is no intelligence guiding evolution at all. Matter can and does self organise itself and it does so based upon simple laws of physics.

No, I am not making any argument at all. I am simply asking atheistic scientists (and even YECs, where also applicable) to acknowledge religious bias where it exists.

And that means what? Secular simply means not to give any oppinion about religion. So neither 1+1 = 2 because of god, nor 1+1 = 2 because of none god, but simply 1+1 = 2.

Nothing else is it with biology. Neither "Human evolution is this and that, and thats because of the existence of an intelligent design." nor "Human evolution is this and that, and thats not because of the existence of an intelligent design." but simply "Human evolution is this and that according to actual scientific proofs and knowledge. (And if you want to link that to an higher intelligent design or not, is totally up to you and none of my issue, as everything about religious believes. Discuss that with your priest.)"