Human Evolution Is Not Taught In Public Schools

[fncceo]

I'm not sure of the numbers

So ... you didn't learn math either?

 

[fncceo]

You're just repeating the biology or ToE. Thus, it's a THEORY. It clearly states it is a theory. If it was a fact, then both sides can use it.

Instead, what I am discussing is human evolution which did not happen and isn't taught in schools. Who is going to be dumb enough to believe all the fakery and fraud that went on with fraudulent fossils?

What about Encino Man?

 

[abu afak]

You're just repeating the biology or ToE. Thus, it's a THEORY. It clearly states it is a theory. If it was a fact, then both sides can use it.

Editor-in-Chief
ScientificAmerican - 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

​

1. Evolution is Only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.​

​

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​

Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.​

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.​

So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.​

​

In addition to the Theory of Evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of Evolution."..."​

​

​

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense By John Rennie - July 1, 2002 Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ [.....] 1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. Many people learned in Elementary School that...

www.usmessageboard.com

​

​

A Scientific Theory is the Strongest Statement science can make about the Universe.​

They get stronger over time and tested and confirmed more.​

For evolution that's 160 years and an explosion of new sciences. None of which contradict it, and all those relevant help Confirm it.​

​

James Bond is a BLITHERING IDIOT.​

Who cannot even discuss this topic because even after THOUSANDS of posts pointing out the above,​

he still doesn't know the basic terminology of the debate, just his Religious mentally ill Indoctrinated idiocy.​

He needs treatment/debriefing for his brainwashed OCD.​

​

`​

 

[WinterBorn]

I was taught human evolution in 9th grade biology and in subsequent biology classes. And I grew up in the deep south, and graduated in 1978.

I have known quite a few science teachers. I was one myself. I never knew a single biology/earth science/physical science teacher who was ok with teaching Creationism.

Oh, and whatever teacher you had who looked at a human eye and said that it was evidence of a creator was obviously not trained to teach the curriculum.

 

[fncceo]

" 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. "

National Academy of Sciences (US) (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (2nd ed.). National Academies Press. p. 2

 

[james bond]

You're just repeating the biology or ToE. Thus, it's a THEORY. It clearly states it is a theory. If it was a fact, then both sides can use it.

Editor-in-Chief
ScientificAmerican - 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

​

1. Evolution is Only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.​

​

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​

Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.​

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.​

So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.​

​

In addition to the Theory of Evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of Evolution."..."​

​

​

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense By John Rennie - July 1, 2002 Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ [.....] 1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. Many people learned in Elementary School that...

www.usmessageboard.com

​

​

A Scientific Theory is the Strongest Statement science can make about the Universe.​

They get stronger over time and tested and confirmed more.​

For evolution that's 160 years and an explosion of new sciences. None of which contradict it, and all those relevant help Confirm it.​

​

James Bond is a BLITHERING IDIOT.​

Who cannot even discuss this topic because even after THOUSANDS of posts pointing out the above,​

he still doesn't know the basic terminology of the debate, just his Religious mentally ill Indoctrinated idiocy.​

He needs treatment/debriefing for his brainwashed OCD.​

​

`​

Are you BreezeWood saying the same thing over and over? Well, I'm still waiting for the evidence besides ToE and natural selection. OTOH, I pointed out the fake and fraudulent fossils of human evolution. Even the embryo was faked by Haeckel. If human evolution was true, then there should be plenty of evidence.

 

[james bond]

I was taught human evolution in 9th grade biology and in subsequent biology classes. And I grew up in the deep south, and graduated in 1978.

I have known quite a few science teachers. I was one myself. I never knew a single biology/earth science/physical science teacher who was ok with teaching Creationism.

Oh, and whatever teacher you had who looked at a human eye and said that it was evidence of a creator was obviously not trained to teach the curriculum.

I guess you believe in human evolution. What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans? I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.

Do you think your students really believed it? I took a test where the question explains long time and evolution and then I have to use the "facts" presented to answer the problem by deriving what I can from the description. I can answer the question correctly even though I don't believe the "facts" or theory.

I can't argue creation anymore as science as a teacher or educator. Yet, that was what was taught before evolution in science classes. Today, creation cannot be taught as science, but it can as religion. I suppose ID cannot be taught as science either because science does not back up ID. All of the evidence for creation cannot be presented such as the complexity of the eye except in religion. I think the creationists can live with that. What they would produce are students who can believe in the science of evolution or if science backs up what is explained by creation. The way I see it, the education system has been taken over by politics. I mean the ACLU changed it for the most part.

 

[fncceo]

What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans? I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.

 

[WinterBorn]

I was taught human evolution in 9th grade biology and in subsequent biology classes. And I grew up in the deep south, and graduated in 1978.

I have known quite a few science teachers. I was one myself. I never knew a single biology/earth science/physical science teacher who was ok with teaching Creationism.

Oh, and whatever teacher you had who looked at a human eye and said that it was evidence of a creator was obviously not trained to teach the curriculum.

I guess you believe in human evolution. What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans? I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.

Do you think your students really believed it? I took a test where the question explains long time and evolution and then I have to use the "facts" presented to answer the problem by deriving what I can from the description. I can answer the question correctly even though I don't believe the "facts" or theory.

I can't argue creation anymore as science as a teacher or educator. Yet, that was what was taught before evolution in science classes. Today, creation cannot be taught as science, but it can as religion. I suppose ID cannot be taught as science either because science does not back up ID. All of the evidence for creation cannot be presented such as the complexity of the eye except in religion. I think the creationists can live with that. What they would produce are students who can believe in the science of evolution or if science backs up what is explained by creation. The way I see it, the education system has been taken over by politics. I mean the ACLU changed it for the most part.

I think almost all the students believed it.

As for the eye, it is an organ that evolved just like all the other organs. There are simple eye spots on planaria that are simply sensitive to light. There are more complex eyes that "see" with limited depth perception. There are eyes that require something to move to be seen. So the idea that eyes would have to originate in their exact configuration in order to work is nonsense. It ignores the Simple Eye in arthropods (pigment pit), that is a single lens and a simple retina.

 

[Hollie]

"Many American students, myself included, never learn the human part of evolution."

Was ''Olga'' not paying attention in class?

I think Olga was, but human evolution was not part of the curriculum. There is no evidence for a common ancestor since Lucy was a chimpanzee.

Which makes me ask were you taught human evolution?

There is ample evidence for a common ancestor to man. Your “Lucy was a chimpanzee”, comment is right from the ICR madrassah. Lucy was bipedal so not a chimpanzee.

Otherwise, if you accept the age of those fossilized remains, how do account for the timeframes with regard to a 6,000 year old planet?

 

[Hollie]

The truth is people weren't taught human evolution. Human evolution isn't a fact. Even Darwin didn't say that. Furthermore, there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor. That kills it right there. And who wants to be a monkey's uncle like you? Are you hairy, eat bananas, sh*t in the jungle, and walk on fours?

Evolution is a FACT and a Theory.

When Darwin said it the first time, it was just his systematic observation.. OF COURSE.
160 Years and tons of evidence later it is now a Fact as well as a theory. Like Gravity.

I've bumped up two refresher course you couldn't have missed but for religious blinders.

`

You're just repeating the biology or ToE. Thus, it's a THEORY. It clearly states it is a theory. If it was a fact, then both sides can use it.

Instead, what I am discussing is human evolution which did not happen and isn't taught in schools. Who is going to be dumb enough to believe all the fakery and fraud that went on with fraudulent fossils?

Human evolution did happen and is taught in schools. The preceding will not apply to you if your school was the ICR madrassah.

 

[Hollie]

The truth is people weren't taught human evolution. Human evolution isn't a fact. Even Darwin didn't say that. Furthermore, there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor. That kills it right there. And who wants to be a monkey's uncle like you? Are you hairy, eat bananas, sh*t in the jungle, and walk on fours?

Evolution is a FACT and a Theory.

When Darwin said it the first time, it was just his systematic observation.. OF COURSE.
160 Years and tons of evidence later it is now a Fact as well as a theory. Like Gravity.

I've bumped up two refresher course you couldn't have missed but for religious blinders.

`

You're just repeating the biology or ToE. Thus, it's a THEORY. It clearly states it is a theory. If it was a fact, then both sides can use it.

Instead, what I am discussing is human evolution which did not happen and isn't taught in schools. Who is going to be dumb enough to believe all the fakery and fraud that went on with fraudulent fossils?

Worshipping at the altar of charlatans such as Kent Hovind is a terrible idea. He has no qualifications for anything but buffoonery.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

A.k.a. Dr. Dino

Kent Hovind needs no introduction, and plumbing the abyss of his cluelessness is probably not a hygienic enterprise, so we’ll restrict ourselves to the basics (and some examples). Hovind used to be the head of Creation Science Evangelism, a young earth creationist activist group. He also operated a small museum and amusement park known as "Dinosaur Adventure Land". In 2006, during the run-up to Hovind's trial for tax evasion, much of the park was shut down due to Hovind's refusal to secure a building permit. He was convicted on the tax evasion charges and is now serving a 10-year sentence.

Hovind has his doctorate in Christian Education from the diploma mill Patriot University. You can download his dissertation from this site (for instance); it was made public through Wikileaks and has become quite popular, so the server is often overloaded. It’s opening sentence, already established as a classic, is “Hello, my name is Kent Hovind”. In it he claims that “n the twentieth century the major attack Satan has launched has been against the first eleven chapters of Genesis,” and goes on to display his deep understanding and erudite knowledge of modern biology by following it with “[c]hapter nine discusses the “best evidence” evolutionists have for evolution, that is, archeopteryx” and “I believe that dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but the have lived with man all through his six thousand year history”, not to mention “The idea that evolutionists try to get across today is that there is continual upward progression. They claim that everything is getting better, improving, all by itself as if there is an inner-drive toward more perfection and order.” (More here, and here, and last but not least here)

Point is, Hovind views the manufactroversy between creation and evolution as an epic battle between God and his former chorus director, Satan. Evolution, you see, has been with us from the start: “When the people left the Tower of Babel, they took their false religion of evolution with them.” In fact, most opposition to Christendom concerns evolution: “the Islam religion accepts evolution very readily as a scientific fact because it fits so well with their teaching.”

Oh yes, Hovind believes the earth is 6000 years old, that the flood created Gran Canyon and that humans walked with dinosaurs. In fact Ken Ham, who shares these beliefs, has taken Hovind to task by creating a list of arguments against evolution a creationist should not use. They actually got into a dispute over that, since Hovind recognized several of his own trump arguments on Ham’s list. And that is Ken Ham. Of creation museum fame. When you are too ignorant of science for Ken Ham, then you are, well, rather ignorant. PZ Myers has attended one of his talks, and wasn’t particularly impressed.

So Hovind rejects the age of the earth, the field of astronomy, the entire field of geology, and has no trace of a clue about physics and/or radiometric dating. In fact, he is utterly ignorant of anything in science, has no time for evidence and is unmoved by facts. He doesn’t seem to mind, though. One famous example (among numberless) is his arguments against 'evolution' by trying to discredit the Big Bang, telling us that Big Bang violates the conservation of angular momentum because if everything came from a tiny spinning dot that blew up then everything would spin in the same direction; since some planets and moons in our solar system exhibit retrograde motion/rotation; this disproves the Big Bang, so evolution is impossible.

Other examples of his claims are that the Trail of Tears (1838) was a result of Darwin's Theory of Evolution (1859), that vaccinations are from Satan, that the New World Order was behind the Oklahoma bombings, that UFOs are “satanically owned and operated”, and that his commercial enterprises needn't file with the IRS in anyway or abide by legally issued warrants from same – even as a tax free organization in the unlikely event they qualify. With respect to this, Hovind claimed that as a minister of God everything he owns belongs to The Lord and he is not subject to paying taxes to the United States on the money he received for doing The Lord's Work (the judge in the case called his arguments “patently absurd”).

Hovind is well known for his "$250,000 Challenge", in which he states that he will pay $250,000 to anyone that can prove evolution. The conditions for “proof” are, well, Hovind’s own, and he has made it quite clear that it is logically impossible to meet his criteria (more here, and here).

An extremely fine resource on Hovind's studies can be found here. A nice, short summary can be found here. Note also this.

Kent has also lent his name to the Hovind, a unit of measurement which evaluates statements for kookery. Roughly, 0 is the score for a scientifically sound statement, 100 is for a lie that isn't even wrong. You can test your own Hovind here.

There are actually groups campaigning for Hovind’s release, such as this one (lead by one Adrienne Gilbert). Their main tactic seems to be praying, however, so they may be relatively harmless (here is another such call to prayer from the criminally insane Shelleytherepublican (Tristan Shuddery)).

Diagnosis: Hovind is a riot of insanity, ignorance, crackpottery, delusion, lunacy and idiocy. Thus, he has had rather far-reaching influence. His jail-time may have halted his career, and he seems to have grown even more unhinged during his time in prison. What happens when he is let out in 2015 will be interesting.

 

[james bond]

What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans? I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.

View attachment 458116

Huh, this is the best. Where is the common ancestor one, hmmm? If I said humans did not come from chimpanzees, then you guys would be all over me for not knowing about human evolution. Can you just fark yourself now?

 

[james bond]

I was taught human evolution in 9th grade biology and in subsequent biology classes. And I grew up in the deep south, and graduated in 1978.

I have known quite a few science teachers. I was one myself. I never knew a single biology/earth science/physical science teacher who was ok with teaching Creationism.

Oh, and whatever teacher you had who looked at a human eye and said that it was evidence of a creator was obviously not trained to teach the curriculum.

I guess you believe in human evolution. What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans? I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.

Do you think your students really believed it? I took a test where the question explains long time and evolution and then I have to use the "facts" presented to answer the problem by deriving what I can from the description. I can answer the question correctly even though I don't believe the "facts" or theory.

I can't argue creation anymore as science as a teacher or educator. Yet, that was what was taught before evolution in science classes. Today, creation cannot be taught as science, but it can as religion. I suppose ID cannot be taught as science either because science does not back up ID. All of the evidence for creation cannot be presented such as the complexity of the eye except in religion. I think the creationists can live with that. What they would produce are students who can believe in the science of evolution or if science backs up what is explained by creation. The way I see it, the education system has been taken over by politics. I mean the ACLU changed it for the most part.

I think almost all the students believed it.

As for the eye, it is an organ that evolved just like all the other organs. There are simple eye spots on planaria that are simply sensitive to light. There are more complex eyes that "see" with limited depth perception. There are eyes that require something to move to be seen. So the idea that eyes would have to originate in their exact configuration in order to work is nonsense. It ignores the Simple Eye in arthropods (pigment pit), that is a single lens and a simple retina.

Then why isn't human evolution taught more widely today? Darwin wrote about it in his second book, but it is considered racist. Darwin's ideas also led to eugenics (fake science) and the Holocaust.

With the eye, it isn't just limited to human eyes. Animals have different eyes. For example, my dogs have night vision in low light. Other jungle animals and birds all have different eyes. With this wide variety of eyes, one can't just simply explain it as "an organ that evolved like all other organs." We can say the same for the ear as we have much different hearing for humans and animals. The complexity of the eye and ear is evidence for creation.

What did Darwin say about the eye and ear?

 

[DrLove]

I was taught all about Darwinisn as well as creationism as a school kid in 60's -early 80's in SoCal. My daughter (now 25) wasn't though. Idaho schools taught her nothing either about creationism or evolution. Today, you might get it in a college philosophy, eastern or western religion class but todays K-12 teachers are gun shy. They fear that if they teach either, kooky parents will defend on them with pitch forks and torches. And negotiating state educational mandates is incredibly tricky. It's a shame.

 

[james bond]

There is ample evidence for a common ancestor to man. Your “Lucy was a chimpanzee”, comment is right from the ICR madrassah.

No, there isn't ample. I just gave you the evidence of the fraud. Lucy was a composite of different fossils, i.e. animals. Most likely, it was some type of chimpanzee. If your hypothesis was true, then there should be more Lucy's and in-between changes. What do the his Finch beaks found in the Galapagos show? Did Darwin really draw Finch beaks?

This is what we get (I don't think he drew these either) and it's considered racist.

 

[Hollie]

There is ample evidence for a common ancestor to man. Your “Lucy was a chimpanzee”, comment is right from the ICR madrassah.

No, there isn't ample. I just gave you the evidence of the fraud. Lucy was a composite of different fossils, i.e. animals. Most likely, it was some type of chimpanzee. If your hypothesis was true, then there should be more Lucy's and in-between changes. What do the his Finch beaks found in the Galapagos show? Did Darwin really draw Finch beaks?

This is what we get (I don't think he drew these either) and it's considered racist.

There is ample evidence. You will deny it because the evidence for human evolution is in direct contradiction to your fundamentalist religious beliefs. You shouldn’t expect others who don’t share your fundamentalist religious to simply ignore the vast evidence for human evolution.

Using the rascist™ slogan as a way to support you religious beliefs is retrograde and dishonest.

 

[WinterBorn]

I was taught human evolution in 9th grade biology and in subsequent biology classes. And I grew up in the deep south, and graduated in 1978.

I have known quite a few science teachers. I was one myself. I never knew a single biology/earth science/physical science teacher who was ok with teaching Creationism.

Oh, and whatever teacher you had who looked at a human eye and said that it was evidence of a creator was obviously not trained to teach the curriculum.

I guess you believe in human evolution. What is the best evidence there was a common ancestor for monkeys and humans? I don't want a museum exhibit or text book answer.

Do you think your students really believed it? I took a test where the question explains long time and evolution and then I have to use the "facts" presented to answer the problem by deriving what I can from the description. I can answer the question correctly even though I don't believe the "facts" or theory.

I can't argue creation anymore as science as a teacher or educator. Yet, that was what was taught before evolution in science classes. Today, creation cannot be taught as science, but it can as religion. I suppose ID cannot be taught as science either because science does not back up ID. All of the evidence for creation cannot be presented such as the complexity of the eye except in religion. I think the creationists can live with that. What they would produce are students who can believe in the science of evolution or if science backs up what is explained by creation. The way I see it, the education system has been taken over by politics. I mean the ACLU changed it for the most part.

I think almost all the students believed it.

As for the eye, it is an organ that evolved just like all the other organs. There are simple eye spots on planaria that are simply sensitive to light. There are more complex eyes that "see" with limited depth perception. There are eyes that require something to move to be seen. So the idea that eyes would have to originate in their exact configuration in order to work is nonsense. It ignores the Simple Eye in arthropods (pigment pit), that is a single lens and a simple retina.

Then why isn't human evolution taught more widely today? Darwin wrote about it in his second book, but it is considered racist. Darwin's ideas also led to eugenics (fake science) and the Holocaust.

With the eye, it isn't just limited to human eyes. Animals have different eyes. For example, my dogs have night vision in low light. Other jungle animals and birds all have different eyes. With this wide variety of eyes, one can't just simply explain it as "an organ that evolved like all other organs." We can say the same for the ear as we have much different hearing for humans and animals. The complexity of the eye and ear is evidence for creation.

What did Darwin say about the eye and ear?

Yes, we can, in fact, say it is an organ that evolved like all the other organs. And small change that provides an advantage to the animal will be passed on more readily.

A dog with better night vision would be a better predator. Therefore, it would eat better, be stronger, and attract more mates.

 

[fncceo]

Can you just fark yourself now?

If I could do that, I wouldn't waste my time trying to educate farm animals.

 

[surada]

it's just a hypothesis

Evolution is not just a hypothesis you dishonest retard. It's a theory. Ignorant people like you rarely understand the difference though.

I'm not ignorant one who believes in lies haha.

The Bible was never intended as a science or history book. Why teach morality tales as science?