High School Teacher Brags About How His School Stopped an Atheist Group from Forming, but He’s in for a Surprise

 This made my day, Lauren.  Thank you.

Great work, JT! As a SSA sponsor whose group is about to start its third year in a public high school, we appreciate your every-present support and enthusiasm. Starting an SSA group has been one of the best things I have ever done in my 28 years as a teacher, and seeing more high school groups starting up all over the country proves to me that our time has come. Without your efforts, JT, that wouldn’t be happening. Thanks!

 Oh, and this letter finally got me to get off my butt and donate to the SSA.  Thanks, Teacher XXXXX.  May this cause you to have a sad.

I personally don’t think atheism had a place in highschool. If religion is being banned why shouldn’t atheism? Isn’t it not a belief as well. There is no proof of God existing or not existing. If one is not aloud neither should the other be. I’m sorry if you don’t like my comment but it’s the truth. You have to look at it from both perspectives. Teaching evolution is taking it far enough, but now you want schools supporting anti-religious groups too?! What is wrong with you people?

Boom, roasted.  I’d have loved to have had an SSA affiliate when I was in high school, but at the time I would never have dreamed of the possibility of that happening.

I can think of a handful of teachers just like XXXXX who would have stood in the way (for example, my math teacher who came to class wearing a shirt that said “It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion!”).

Keep giving them hell, JT.

Nathan,

Please give an example of religion being “banned” in any public school in this country.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/students-sue-high-school-that-banned-christian-club/

 Ok So then NAMBLA should Be allowed to have a School club, as should the White Priders. How about the local street Gang should the Crips & Bloods have a school club too? Also who is going to sponsor this group? You going to FORCE a non believer to sponsor this group? Would you mind FORCING an Atheist to lead a Religious group? Also as Atheism is Not a religion then what are these Rights you clam? Oh you want to claim it as a religion. well then as a Religion it is STILL BANNED.

Religion is “aloud” in schools; it’s simply not suppose to be imposed on students by the school in an official capacity. That means that students are perfectly within their right to pray to their god in front of the flag pole before school. Students are allowed to have voluntary bible study groups outside of class time (i.e. after school clubs). Students can talk about their religious views freely as long as they aren’t disrupting class or harassing another student.

What they aren’t allowed to do is parade their religion around, disrupt others, bully others, harass others, or force others to partake in their personal rituals. If you think that qualifies as a ban, I’m sorry, you’re wrong.

 And if there are no Atheists working for the school? should a non believer be FORCED to represent a club they do not believe in?

It’s funny how oblivious this teacher is. There have been a few of these already, proud people merrily announcing the ways in which they’re breaking the law, thinking they’re being perfectly righteous.

I would suggest you read the whole letter that was sent to the school Nathan. I’ll point out the paragraph that should answer your question:

“Mr. XXXXX has also asserted that the students attempting to form a secular club at XYZ were prohibited from doing so due to the faculty denying them sponsorship.  However, this is illegal.  It violates the Equal Access Act to allow a monitor requirement to serve as a bar to a club’s formation or to impose restrictions on one group that are not imposed on other groups.  In Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a high school violated the Equal Access Act when it denied a student permission to form a Christian club.  The Court was guided by its observation that the purpose of the Act is to forbid schools to “deny access to school facilities to any unfavored student club on the basis of its speech content.” 

Also, is Glenn Beck the best you can come up with?

Don’t worry, Nathan…unfortunately, being a stupid, dishonest, lying sack of illiterate dog crap will always be allowed in high school.

A 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.

You are confusing the term theory with hypothesis.  Gravity is just a THEORY!  If you don’t believe in it, why don’t you just float the fuck away!

Don’t bother with explanations. Homeschooling and private Christian schooling indoctrinate kids at an early age to the idea that “evolution is just a theory”. The brainwashing is hard wired in deep.

If one belief is taught all should be, or save it for higher education institutions.

Religion isn’t completely banned yet as the majority of the population still believes in creation. In my opinion it’s all or nothing. You want to offer a subject to a student as an elective that is fine. Making something a requirment that is against someone’s beliefs is just wrong and unacceptable.

> 
I wasn’t aware they HAD to supply a supervisor if one couldn’t be found.

They do have other options. For example, they can exempt this specific club from the requirement of having a supervisor. All they’re really required to do is refrain from using “nope, no supervisor” as an excuse for forbidding the club.

Thanks for supporting the SCA, since this case was settled on exactly the same grounds a few months later:
http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/News/PRDetail/5247 

It’s their job, if you have your own agenda you’re not qualified to be a teacher.

Atheism is NOT a belief, as far as bald is a hair color, not collecting stamps is a hobby and abstinence a sexual position.

Never head of an atheist suing a school because classmates decided to pray.  I have heard of atheists suing a school because of faculty leading organized school prayer, which is different.  Christian clubs are also allowed in public schools.

Yeah, so if your pharmacist is refusing to sell you medication because it’s against his religion, would you think of that as normal?

My retard-o-meter is OVER NINE THOUSAND! Please stop, you’re hurting yourself.

http://download.lardlad.com/sounds/season12/homr14.mp3
 

The school is welcome to exempt the club from having a sponsor.

This is bible god you’re talking about?  The guy (gal? it?) that birthed himself into mankind to sacrifice himself to HIMSELF to forgive the sins of a guy made from dust and a gal he created from the guys rib?  Please forgive me if I’m skeptical.

I’m not so sure that SPONSORING a club is the same thing as REPRESENTING a club.  Even a non-believer should be able to show enough respect and support to fulfill their DUTIES to the students.

One last thing you are somewhat correct Evolution is not “A” fact. It is made up of millions upon millions of observable facts. Still counting… 

Who said force it on them? An elective means you have a choice.

Wow. That teacher was a Fucking idiot. 

Oh wow. You really got to us. None of us have any experience with religion whatsoever!

*Eyeroll*
A lot of us are former Christians. We know what it’s like to believe in things without any evidence. We know what it’s like to believe in something just because it *feels* true. But we also know what it’s like to believe in things because we know they are true and we have actual evidence that they are true. It feels way better.
Christians look very stupid when they try to share the message of God with us because they always assume that we just haven’t experienced the love of God before. Sorry, but just because endorphins are sent to your brain doesn’t make a teddy bear alive and doesn’t make an invisible man real.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion.

Religion is not banned from school. Teaching/forcing religion on children is. 

Atheism is not a religion. It’s a lack of religious beliefs. 

If the school has to support religious groups, and they do, why should they not support Atheist ones? Because you personally don’t like them?

What’s wrong with YOU? You’re highly uninformed and you appear to not care if certain peoples’ rights get totally ignored simply because you disagree with them. 

 Yeah right “elective”. Prayer banners, teachers like this asshole endorsing xtian views, principals organasing mandatory religious stuff…

On FORCING a non-believer to sponsor a religious group: Yes. If there were a school where some Hindus, Muslims, Christians or Wiccans wanted to have an extra-curricular club, and all the teachers were atheists, and none of them volunteered to sponsor, the administration should either waive the sponsorship rule, or FORCE one or a group of teachers/employees to fill that role. The administration can not discriminate against a religious minority (for example) , by using the sponsorship loophole.

(Oh, and for the record and the edification of both you and Nathan: atheism is not a religion but since it is a belief about religion it is likewise protected by the same laws protecting freedom of religion and expression, atheism is not a proper noun, evolution is an observed fact, groups promoting illegal acts, hate crimes, and/or bullying may be denied access on non-discriminatory grounds, and praying is not legally banned in US public schools so quit lying.)

Nathan,
I believe that given time and enough hard work from People who actually care that most of society’s ills could be lessened if not abolished. I believe that you have the ability to respect your fellow man if you spend some time working at it. I believe that most people in this world could do the same if they had their basic human needs met. I believe that being happy is a choice and is achievable given we work at it. I believe that if I show others kindness and love that more often than not I will receive the same in return. I believe that if I set a good example to my children that they will follow my lead. I believe that most likely you and I want more of the same things out of this life than not. I believe that humanity will eventually figure out empathy if we don’t blow ourselves up first. I believe that ALL men and women were created equal and have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And not just the White, Straight, Christian one’s either. 😉

the problem is one of safety and insurance. when do clubs meet, and where? in the school, often after hours. these are children, legally speaking. they can’t be left alone unsupervised. an adult must be with them, or observing them, at all times. i suppose exemptions could be made in very limited circumstances, but i’m pretty sure an adult has to be at least in the building while the meeting takes place. and with them if they’re traveling to a club related event, etc. 

Change the activity to see the fallacy:  Not collecting stamps is a hobby.  Let me ask you this, what do you not collect?

I’m a woman. According to him, I should have married the man that raped me when I was 15, and proceeded to let him treat me as a baby making machine til I died. Instead, that man is now a Pastor of a church, and I got disowned by my family for taking Plan B and trying to press charges. 

Your god does not love everyone. The only people he actually cares about are straight males. The rest of us are trash to him. 

He does nothing when people use his name to hurt, trash or even kill others. He does nothing when people lie and break laws in his name. He doesn’t give a damn when people suffer because others are using his name to cause harm.

Your god lets people, children even, get raped and abused. He lets people die from illnesses he could easily cure. He lets people starve. 

I’ll look your god in the face and ask him where his Fucking morality is. He has none. 

Yawn. I can’t even believe we are going to waste the time refuting this standard apologetic tripe for the 9 millionth time. However, it’s almost 5:30 here, and I’ve wrapped up work for the day, so why not:
“Where is the scientific evidence disproving there is a God?” — Where is the scientific evidence disproving leprechauns?”Fortunately I do not need evidence to believe in something.” — I have one of those leprechauns under my bed.”I see miracles happen everyday.” — Please read up on ‘cognitive bias.'”I feel his presence and he will answer if you listen.” — The brain can be a powerful deceiver. Arguments from personal experience are not evidence. “I dare you to challenge his commandments and ask yourself if it’s good for you or if he is just being a hateful and immoral God?” — Based on the first four commandments, I’d say this god character is a jealous egomaniac that thinks very highly of himself. As for five through nine, they all show up in societal laws and norms which pre-date the Decalogue anyway, so nothing original from on high there. So we’re left with a single commandment telling me I’ll go to hell if I think my neighbor’s wife is hot or his car is nice? So be it.

I would love to have a student come to me and ask me to sponsor an SSA chapter. I’d do it in a heartbeat, even despite the fact that I’m not out to my students. That would frankly be enough.

P.S. JT, you are awesome. Keep up your amazing work with these great high school students.

No, the school has no obligation to allow groups that support illegal activities (pedophilia, gang violence) or that violate governmental policies against discrimination (white supremacists). I agree that a believer should not be forced to sponsor the group, if sponsor means participate in and support the group. However, if sponsor just means “sign your name on sheet, make sure group is not misusing their privileges,” then absolutely someone should be forced to do that (or they can just forego the name-signing requirement). The point is that the school cannot bar the group from forming, same as they cannot bar a religious group from forming (you knew that, right?). If no teacher is willing to do it, then I’d say the principle or some other administrator should be required to (again, only if the school is unwilling to ignore the sponsorship requirement).

Nice try on attempting to compare atheism to criminal activity and hate-mongering though, bigot.

I’m sure Nathan’s church, like all gloss over the horrible parts. Of course the current fashion is to disregard the OT almost all together. Well, except when it’s convenient. I am sure he has never read that verse.

Yeah, gawd loves you, he has a plan that includes torture and rape, but you know that he loves you very very much. I’m tired of this “argument”…

THANK YOU

 If all I had to do was memorize a couple lines of text in order to get EC, I would have done so quite happily. Just about everything else I’ve ever memorized I’d forgotten within a couple weeks anyway, so what’s the difference? 😉

The theory of evolution is actually more comprehensive than gravity. Gravity and quantum mechanics can’t be explained together in a unified framework as of it.

Oooh, someone should’ve taken down the verse at the beginning of the week and put up something just as inspirational, but from someone more secular. It would be interesting to see, assuming the teacher never noticed, what she would do when students copied down a different quote for EC.

 If you can assert that your god exists without evidence, I can dismiss it without evidence.

Where is the scientific evidence disproving elves, unicorns, sea serpents, or do you believe in those as well?
What about Allah, Buddha, Shiva, or FSM?  Do you consider them just as real, since there is no scientific evidence disproving them, either?

The only miracle I’d like to see right now if for your computer to die.

As for the commandments being for “our own good”, the entire book of leviticus is one big crazy hate train.
 

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.-Christopher Hitchens

 Atheism is a belief like bald is a hairstyle.

Well, Allah is the same deity as Yahweh, AKA the Christian “God.”

A majority? You don’t understand what a majority is. 2.2 billion is not a majority of 7 billion, unless you are ignoring the rest of the world, as so many ignorant fools do. 

Yes, a sizable chuck of humanity believes in some form of Christianity. Christianity isn’t banned in the USA because the constitution and its amendments unambiguously prohibit it. Many groups of early immigrants to the US were fleeing from religious persecution. Some, like the Quakers and Moravians, actually did good in their areas like actually believing ALL humans were equal, seen in Bethlehem, PA’s cemetery known as God’s Acre; the first fully integrated cemetery in the Colonies, burying Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans next to each other. Most other groups either kept the religious status quo or decided to start persecuting in the Colonies/States.  

Also, even for the present US, only 4/10 of the population believe in strict creationism, AKA Adam and Eve happened literally, or close to literally as stated in the Bible. 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx

I’m extremely proud of this student. At my high school we were extremely lucky, and managed to actually find a willing sponsor for our SSA group there. We’ve still had some issues, but we managed to form a legitimate club despite faculty trying to stop us.  

Enough with your ‘picked on’ attitude. Religious CLUBS are not “banned” in public schools. Your failure to understand the issues is what is plaguing this tiresome argument. 

Your god is the most immoral fictional character ever created. Have you ever read that book you hold so dear?

 Fortunately for you, enough other people who DO need evidence of things perform enough hard work in uncovering it to allow you the life you lead. The Bible says that disease is caused by “evil spirits”. Scientists who needed more evidence made discoveries leading to Germ Theory, without which you personally would probably be dead.

Bet all you like. The Bible can’t compete in a market of free ideas and information sharing. Google and read for comprehension sometime.

“God” commanded that people be stoned to death for working on Saturday. Ta Da! Hateful and immoral, QED.

 Sorry to tell you, you’re incredibly ignorant of the subject you want to claim knowledge of. You WILL NOT find an instance of students’ rights to their religion being taken from them. The ACLU defends them against those who try.

Also, the wording of your comment indicates that you already know there is no evidence. That is why you’re reduced to demanding that it’s common sense. You’re lying, Liar.

God wouldn’t have you marry a man simply because he raped you.

Wow, Nathan. Seriously, read the Bible sometime. Actually read it; don’t just gloss over it.

Deuteronomy 20:28-29:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

“the majority of the population still believes in creation”
That’s precious.

“Making something a requirment that is against someone’s beliefs is just wrong and unacceptable.”

And he wants creationism taught in schools. Such a darling!

When I was in elementary and high school, I just observed the “believers'” behavior, including my parents, etc, and I grew to despise the pettiness of all of it.  I was raised in a Catholic atmosphere, but I never once thought any of the dogma was reality.  I guess I was just lucky to see the light so early in life; or rather not see the light.  I went to a Catholic high school and didn’t really give a shit about the religion unless it interfered with me personally, which was mostly about sleeping on Sunday and  getting confirmed at the age of 15.  I have plenty of friends my age that are like fuck that shit, religion is for the mentally handicapped.  I think that there are a lot of intelligent, well-meaning people who use it for good and plenty of others who use it for their own gain and to society’s peril.  It’s just a shame that we all have to deal with this nonsense in politics.  I thought solving big problems was the domain of serious and learned adults, not the urine-soaked playpen of the children and child-like.

This.

Nathan, Sheep, etc., please play devil’s advocate (a fun pun) and do some research.  Think about the arguments being presented before you, instead of immediately stating illogical, uninformed, and misunderstood “points.”

To your relief and my chagrin, you may even come away from such an exercise believing exactly what you do now.  This is always a possibility.  The same possibility that causes so many unnecessary problems in our society.  To quote an annoying comedian: “You can’t fix stupid.”  Chances are you aren’t, so please don’t be the outlier.

 It is difficult to disprove something which offers no grounds on which to begin investigation.

You would bet money.  Thankfully, you’ve gambled it away at the penny slots. 

Most people are able to distinguish a person on a train professing his “theories”(about a magic man that can’t be killed and has a fantastic party trick involving wine and water), from a person in a classroom professing his theories (about forces that draw small objects to a much larger objects and other silly things like carbon dating).

The easiest part of believing is that evidence is not a prerequisite.  Hilariously (not really), the easiest route tends to be the most traveled and least rewarding.

You must define “maricle”–even if you meant “miracle”–because I seriously doubt you’ve witnessed the “maricles” to which I think you are referring.

Don’t forget to capitalize He and His.  Much like how many pastors and televangelists never forget to capitalize on Him.

What does god command?  If you are referring to the 10 Commandments, then I hate to say it, but there is no group of people that obeys these.

There are many ill-suited parents.  In fact, many parents indoctrinate their children from birth–and not even out of spite, but out of ignorance! 

I doubt anyone is challenging the commandments…well not all of them.  Most people are challenging the thousands of other things the bible and religious organizations perpetuate around the world.  If it is god’s plan to to make religions appear to be full of backpedaling morons whose arguments and teachings many times more than not have negative affects on humanity, then what exactly is he achieving? 

For that matter, what is the point of even offering an option to believe in this supernatural being?  What is the point of creating a world with humans?  Was he bored?  Not possible, for he is perfect, right?  So he wanted to show his love for us?  But we didn’t exist yet, so this can’t be true.  Oh, perhaps he always knew he would create the human species, so maybe that can be true.  Then why was there ever a time when we didn’t already exist?  No, this must not be true either.

Well, all I can come up with is that humans are the primary species on Earth capable of thought, and while some humans try to work toward a better future, other humans would rather invent mechanisms aimed at postponing the feelings that come from fearing death. 

You are simply plain wrong. Just because you refuse to educate yourself doesn’t make it any less true. You are suffering from “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge”.

I would like to appoligize for “not doing my research” and “not being educated”. I stated my opinion that is all. I do want my children growing up to know God, but I also want them have the opprotunity to learn about evolution as well. Is it impossible to believe that creation and evolution could both be true? I am truly sorry if I have offended anyone that is never my intentions. Sometimes I let my emotions take over as I’m sure some of you have the same issue.

I would like to appoligize for “not doing my research” and “not being educated”. I stated my opinion that is all..I am truly sorry if I have offended anyone that is never my intentions.

I don’t think you’ve have offended anyone here much. I think some fierce reactions are because we are very tired of reading the same non-arguments over and over again, and that many things you said were stated as facts, not opinions.

I do want my children growing up to know God, but I also want them have the opprotunity to learn about evolution as well.

I hope your children will grow up with the freedom to choose their own religion or no religion at all. And I hope you will keep the courage to realy think about the reactions you got here.

Is it impossible to believe that creation and evolution could both be true?

Obviously you can believe that creationism and evolution could both be true. You can even believe that the earth is flat and round at the same time. I won’t thinkt it is very logical, but that is just my opinion.

Unfortunately, the option the school might give would be to eliminate all after-school clubs and/or programs. Then backlash would be worse for the atheist group for “making them get rid of our favorite group”. Just saying…

Glasofruix, read the other responses; it’s possible to get your point across without using ableist insults (namely, calling Nathan ‘retard’).  

I don’t take issue with your use of insults, but rather your choice of insults.  It’s roughly equivalent to, say, a stereotypical tea-partier calling a politician ‘atheist’ – it says far more about the ignorance of the insulter than it does about the insultee.  

If nothing else, use insults as an opportunity to flex your creative muscles – I’m sure you can find more colorful ways of expressing yourself, without needing to slam an entire segment of society at the same time.

I don’t think being blunt is the same as being hateful.
I would highly recommend that you do some unbiased research. I used to go out looking for more information that would prove my side right. But it turns out that’s not at all an honest way to go about it. If you’re so confident that you are right, learning arguments from the other side wouldn’t hurt. In fact, it would help you because you would at least know what types of arguments we tend to make.

I’m sorry, but when someone says, i quote, that “Evolution is a THEORY!!! Not fact!!” he’s either retarded or a lying jerk. As anyone with a pair of working neurons can google the definition of a scientific theory.

The way I look at it, my son is < 10 years removed from HS.  With JT's work, by the time he gets there, hopefully there will be no need for letters like this should he want to start an SSA club (assuming one doesn't already exist by then)

As I stated, “I will continue to look at it from multiple perspectives”. If I were to look at it strictly from the perspective of the “real world” I would be no better informed then I am now except from the opposing view point. Do you understand? I need to learn as much about religion as I do about scientific theory in order to fully understand and be able to debate an argument effectively. If I were only knowledgable on one side what argument could I possibly make? I realize that I do not have the knowledge to effectively get my points across to many non believers and believers alike, which is why I have decided to further my education in both religion and science and the history involved in both. I suggest many of you to do the same if you haven’t already.

I can think of two examples that could be twisted into ‘prohibiting prayer in school’.  One was kids wanting to Tebow in the middle of  the hallway, thus obstructing other kids’ access.  They were told thy could pray where they didn’t impede other kids and cause a safety hazard, but they insisted on bending their knees in the middle of the hallway.  And got suspended.  Not for praying, but for blocking the hallway.

Muslim students wanted to be able to do their full face Mecca in the middle of class.  That was considered to disruptive.  Students didn’t push the issue.

And, you need to learn the difference between ‘atheism’ and ‘secular’.

I’m not trying to convert anyone. If I happen to do so while I am here so be it, but that is not my intentions. I know most of you have probably come from religious backgrounds and you have already made up your mind, I’m just saying don’t close the door completely. I will always have a tiny bit of skepticism I’m afraid even if I won’t admit it all the time. I can’t lie to myself. I’m sure even some, not all but some have thoughts from time to time like, maybe I’m wrong and their is a God? Maybe, just maybe this world was perfectly designed to inhabit life. Perfectly placed just close enough to the sun that we don’t freeze to death, and far enough away we don’t burn. I don’t think it is coincidence that we live on the only planet in our solar system, possibly the galaxy and universe, that is inhabitable. I just can’t believe that by chance, life happened. Seems less likely to me then a creator. Which is largely why I need more education.

You totally missed the part about preaching…
Now, imagine the size of our solar system, compared to the size of the universe it’s smaller than a water molecule in the ocean, which means that our planet is less than insignificant. So to think than an omnipotent being created that insignificant particle so that in his infinite love he would torture us so we, insignificantly small organisms, might one day live by his side is a tad arrogant. Your indoctrination limits your comprehension of the beauty of the universe.

Oh and by the way, we have evidence about how our planet was “created” and there’s no magic skyfairy in there.

 Wow, I wish you had started out like this. I feel like we all got off on the wrong foot with you. Nathan, nobody here hates you or people with your beliefs. You’re just getting responses born of frustration with the same basic arguments we hear all the time.

For future reference, it would be helpful, and you would get a much better response if you asked questions, rather than stated classic arguments as facts. For example ask things like, “but if as you say, evolution is a fact, can someone explain why it is called a theory?” Someone (probably a bunch of someones) will be happy to explain it, and you won’t come across as combative.

And on that subject, Jerry Coyne is a great go-to guy for information about evolution. You should read his book “Why Evolution Is True.” You can also go to his site and read the forums there. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/

Good luck, Nathan.

Please keep an open mind when reading this article on evolution as I have, http://www.creationism.org/caesar/microevol1.htm

And this one on how life “just happened”, http://www.creationism.org/batman/index.htm

I do realize it is from a creationist website but they do provide you with validated references. Tell me what you think.

“Darwinists argue that, given enough time, with the wasps constantly attacking them, the flies would eventually evolve into a new, superior species.”

No, an evolutionary biologist would not argue that.  They would argue that the flies might (but not necessarily) evolve defense mechanisms.  And that mechanism might be a birth rate high enough to withstand the negative pressure of the parasite.

And a parasite is simply one evolutionary pressure.  If a new species evolves, it will almost certainly not be due to a single pressure alone.  And nobody says a species must evolve.  Some have remained remarkably similar for hundreds of millions of years.  Dragonflies and horseshoe crabs for example.  If an organism is well suited to its environment, there’s no need for it to change.  Evolution doesn’t have a goal in mind other than adapting to a changing environment.

Something you’ll notice in general about ID/Creationism is that it doesn’t present any actual theories of its own, other than “something intelligent” (unless they’re the Answers in Genesis type and propose a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1)   If you watch the Nova episode on the Dover case, this comes out at the end quite clearly http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html When pressed, the ID side didn’t have any explanations for how anything happened.  They only had reasons (all refuted) as to why it wasn’t evolution.  ID itself isn’t a theory, but rather an anti-theory.

(edit to add: or the flies might go extinct. Some evolutionary branches are dead ends. Although in that case, the parasite would either evolve to attack something else, or it would go extinct as well)

I think it’s bullshit, high quality bullshit at that, i’d say military grade…

While I will consider your take on it, it seems that it has a very valid point. Like I said I am very young in my religion and in order to fully understand I must look at it in multiple perspectives. I have to say though it seems as though evolutionist have has many questions themselves as young earth creationists.

The main difference is that evolutionnists find answers backed up by solid evidence and creationnists just keep going in circles.

Oh come on, not the “why are there still monkeys” shite…. And you expect us to not treat your like a complete idiot after that? Please, go read some other sources than your usual biaised creationnist horsecrap.

FYI, we did NOT evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor. At some point our species split, some of them became humans other became chimps and whatnot. Evolution does not have a goal, whatever small alterations give an advantage are kept, multiply that by billions of years and alterations and you get an entirely different species from the original. After all we are started as bacteria.

FYI, everything I read on the topic will be biased in one way or the other. I have read my post and evolutionists post as well. Where are the neutral studies on the subject? Both sides have done extensive research but both have the unknown factors. Do you understand this?

“Where are the neutral studies on the subject?”

Come again? One side have loads of proof that 2+2 = 4, the other side says that gawd told them that 2+2 = 5. Where’s the neutral study on that? It’s stupid and you know it.

“Both sides have done extensive research”

One side done research and got results, the other bases its claim on a 2k+ years old mythology without material evidence, big, big difference.

“both have the unknown factors.”

We can’t possibly know everything as of right now. The thing is, that scientists assume that, they’re not affraid of saying “we don’t know yet”, while creationnists claim to know everything.

Nathan,
All scientific recearch is neutral. Scientists set out ot proof their own theories wrong.

When you talk about ‘both’ sides you are not looking at the perspective of the creation stories of the Babylonians, the Navajos, the Norse, the Mayas, the Maoris etc. etc.

All creation myths, including the christian one, have nothing but unknown factors.

Evolution however is backed up with facts. Do you nderstand that?

Going up because of lack of space.

“This is obviously a futile conversation as you are completely biased in your views.”

Just because i don’t blindly believe in the nonexistent and ask for proof does not mean i’m biaised. The creation story is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by ignorant people. Not to mention that YOUR story is not the only one there, which does not add credibilty to it.

“you however only consider the “facts” you claim to have.”

I consider verified and verifiable facts backed up by evidence, i don’t “claim” to have them they are freely available for you to examine. There’s is no evidence of the bearded magic guy in the sky, so excuse me if i don’t feel compelled to believe in his existence.

“but with the unknown factors or “gaps” in it all, how can you claim it as a fact?”

Those gaps are being closed while creationnists try to slither into them, just a little unknown does not disprove evolution as a whole. Again, go and read about what a scientific theory is and how it can be proven or disproven.

“This is why you should be open to debate.”

Not. On one side we have science and on the other we have magic, there’s no debate possible here.

“I realize you are not an expert on the subject as I hear the same
argument from evolutionists every time I even remotely question their
“facts”. ”

Welcome to the club, we have a shitload of creationnists who come here to claim that god did it with the same (lack of) arguments as you do, again, again and again. We’re not going to change our responses just for your eyes. If i see a cat and it meows it’s still a cat, whatever your skyfairy tells you to think it is.

 If man came from dirt, why is there still dirt?

Moving up discussiopn.

*facepalm*

I already answered that, which means you’re not paying attention.  ok, I’m going to fight fire with fire.

If we are designed, then how come we have tail bones and an appendix.  Why do men have nipples?  How come the universe is so vast, and yet we live on an obscure very remote corner of a corner?  How come marsupials only exist in Australia (except for opossums).  How come there are marsupial fossils in south america?  How come remote volcanic islands only have small plants and coconuts?  How can we have ring species?  How come whales have hip bones?  How come apes carry many of the exact same endogenous  retrovirus markers that we do.  How come chimps and humans have more endogenous retrovirus markers in common than other apes?  How come our chromosome #2 has two telomeres in the center, and two sets of centromeres?  How come we don’t have wings, can’t breath under water, can’t see as well as an eagle, and can’t change color at will?

I will read the book that was suggested to me, and I will evaluate it to the best if my ability. I just doubt it will ever change my view on evolution. I will keep an open mind as I love to learn. I wish I had realized this as a young child.

I just doubt it will ever change my view on evolution. I will keep an open mind as I love to learn.

You will learn what evolution actually is.
It is indeed ‘ the greatest show on earth’.

 Three words: recurrent laryngeal nerve

Also the blind spot in the eye, caused by the optical nerve passing through the retina. Cephalopod eyes have that fixed by placing the nerves behind the retina

1. If you don’t believe anything you have not wittnessed yourself, than creationism is out of the question as well.
2. What do you call ´superior species´. Are we superior to sharks? Are eagles superior to elephants?

I ask you to read the article I posted earlier in this conversation. Here is the link again http://www.creationism.org/caesar/microevol1.htm
It will explain why that statement is not true.

No, it doesn’t.  You’re not paying attention to what Stev84 said.

The accepted definition of ‘species’ is two groups that cannot interbreed.  From that perspective, we HAVE observed new species evolve repeatedly.

What you want to do is create a new definition of ‘species’ to be ‘higher life form’.  And there’s no definition of higher life form, other than it seems to keep coming back to ‘human’.  Different kinds of life aren’t ‘superior’, they’re just different.  Are humans superior to bacteria?  Bacteria would seem to have a better chance at long term survival.  (ok, I played a trick, there are lots of different kinds of bacteria, some may not survive).

That said, we do have proof of what you call macro evolution.  DNA mutates at a fairly regular rate.  By measuring the difference between any two forms of life, we can calculate by how many generations they diverge.  We can do this for two house cats, a house cat and a lion, or a lion and a wolf.  Or a mouse and a bat.  And when we map these all out, they all fit.  We can conceive of something not fitting into the puzzle, but it hasn’t happened.

 This is why I love reading debates with creationists: I always learn something new (though invariably from my fellow evolutionists). I’d never known about chromosome #2 being a likely merger of two separate chromosomes, or the odd pathway that the recurrent laryngeal nerve takes, before reading this discussion. 🙂

In case you haven’t found them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0TunodLjRs (he's talking about he Dover trial.  He also happens to be a theist, not that that’s important)

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s 

Here is a video of Richard Dawkins demonstrating it with the dissection of a giraffe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

 You will understand after you’ve learned what evolusion is and how it works.
Good luck!

“I do not know half of what I need to know in order to validate my argument . . .”

As someone else hinted, a seeker of truth does not seek only knowledge that validates what they already think.  You need to seek the truth, whatever it turns out to be; i.e., what is in evidence.

“. . . but you still haven’t provided me with anything that makes me believe we actually evolved from the same ancestry as apes.”

YES, they did!  You just didn’t understand it, failed to process it, or turned a blind eye to it.  Just one of them:

We CLEARLY have a chromosome #2 that is the product of the joining of two chromosomes from our common ancestor that remain separate in chimpanzees.

Think before you type.

As for the argument that humans are a “superior” species, consider the following quote from the late Stephen Jay Gould:

“Look in the mirror, and don’t be tempted to equate
transient domination with either intrinsic superiority or prospects for
extended survival.”

A tough pill for religious folks to swallow (after all, being created “in God’s image” should make us the center of the universe, right?); but in the words of Vince Masuka:

“That’s not opinion, that’s science. And science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14-inch strap-on.”

Because that is not how evolution works. It’s not magic, like a giraffe giving birth to a horse. Evolution is a word used to describe incremental changes within a population over time. 

Germ theory is also a fact, but that does not mean we know all there is to know about microbiology, or that we’re all done making progress in treatment of disease. Evolution deniers are like people who deny germ theory just because there’s some diseases we can’t cure yet. Study of evolution is a process. We know it does occur, so that really isn’t up for debate any more. Now the study of evolution is all about the intricate details.

If you don’t want people to think that you’re brainless idiot, don’t act like one. Seriously, why are you surprised that people think you’re stupid if you make “arguments” like that?

Evolution works with small incremental changes. Over many, many generations those add up. So you won’t see huge differences from one generation to the next.
It’s also why evolution is very apparent in life forms with fast reproduction cycles. Like bacteria, which can produce new generations in less than half an hour.

Nathan, seriously, it’s kind of frustrating to keep answering the same things over and over again.  The reason you don’t accept evolution is that you completely don’t understand it.  You think you do, but you quite obviously don’t.

And it’s no wonder given the creationist strawmen out there.

Here, try this one http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg  when do the words change from red to purple, or purple to blue?  Evolution is the same, except that ‘red’ might have multiple descendants.  It’s not linear.  But you don’t have red letters turning into blue letters, or dogs giving birth to cats.  That “we should see crocoducks” is a a crock.

Related: eyes don’t just ‘appear fully formed’ as a ‘genetic mutation’.  No human is going to be born with fully formed wings, or gills, or a 2nd set of arms.

There are details of the mechanisms of evolution that are debated by evolutionary biologists.  The basic facts, such as we all descended from a common ancestor, as as solid as germ theory to explain disease, or atomic theory to explain the elements.

In general, your arguments are against a fantasy version of evolution from X-Men or creationist web sites.

So we shouldn’t teach children gravity because we can’t combine the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics? It shouldn’t be taught because we have no comprehensive framework for gravity that fits with all other physical forces? There is a lot more evidence for evolution and common ancestry over a huge range of scientific fields. The evidence is staggering and won’t go away just because some mechanisms aren’t fully understood yet or because we still discover new things. Just because things get more fuzzy at the beginning doesn’t mean you can ignore the very well developed lines of descent further along the timeline.

And there is a long term bacteria study that has been running for over 20 years and 50,000 generations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

In 2008, one of the populations evolved the ability to metabolize citrate (which is contained in the growth medium). Something that wild e.coli strains can’t do. They then showed that earlier strains without the necessary mutation could re-evolve that ability, indicating that this may be dependent on an earlier mutation leading up to it

 And you’re an idiot. That’s a fact

I guess you will never understand. If something is not proven it is not a fact. You obviously do not know the meaning of “fact”. That’s not to say in ten, twenty, or even a hundred years it won’t be proven. Until then, it’s “speculation”.

Please stop making such a fool of yourself.
Read the book by Jerry Coyne ´Why Evolution is True´, than come back.

Nathan, you have exhausted my patience.  You are being willfully ignorant.  You’re not trying to learn, or else you’d be paying attention to what people are providing.  You are not.  You are stuck with a gross misconception of evolution, and are completely ignoring several of us trying to even correct what it is you’re arguing against.

I can’t see any evidence that you’ve read or watched anything anyone has provided.  If you’re really curious as to why overwhelmingly biologists (even theistic) say evolution is a fact, the go read “Why Evolution is True” or “The Greatest Show on Earth”.

 You seem to be talking about Kirk Cameron & Co’s. “Crocoduck” idea. Where one animal gives birth to something which is immediately, noticeably, and demonstrably of a different species from it’s parent. That’s just a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory actually predicts. One of the predictions of evolutionary theory is that offspring will be different than the parent, but only slightly so. Look at human children for example. They’re not exactly like either one of their parents. They’re a random combination of traits from both parents, with a few bits of random mutation thrown in. Over enough generations, the differences become more and more obvious.

You also seem to have a slight misunderstanding of scientific terminology in that a theory never becomes a fact. I’ll explain my understanding of things and hopefully this will help. As always, somebody correct me if I’m wrong here.

A scientific law is a collection of observations concerning something that happens, sometimes including math, especially with laws of physics. A scientific theory is a collection of validated hypotheses which have been shown to explain why and how something happens. Facts* are easily observable phenomena which can generally only be interpreted in one way, and can be included in both laws and theories.

Consider gravity: you drop a ball, it’s going to fall until it hit’s something below it, that’s a fact. The law of gravity states the same thing in a more general way, and has a nice bit of math which states what’s happening in a highly specific way. The theory of gravity goes way over my head and says something about gravitons and the fabric of space/time and a bunch of other stuff explaining why gravity happens.

The same is true with evolution. Things evolve from one generation to the next, that’s the main fact we “evolutionists” (I hate that term) speak of. If there’s a law of evolution (Im sure there is, I’ve just never seen it so it’s more of a guess), it basically says the same thing. The theory of evolution is highly complex, and explains quite well how and why evolution happens. It includes selection methods like natural and sexual selection; genetic things such as genetic drift, insertion, deletion, duplication, and mutation. It’s one of our most widely supported theories, but it only makes sense if you understand what it’s really saying: small changes from one generation to the next leading to larger charges over time. In fact, the difference between what you call micro- and macro-evolution is only time. It’s the difference between one generation and one hundred.

*BTW, where did you get your “possibility, probability, and certainty” test from? It’s a bit silly in that all three of those terms are just different degrees of probability. It reminds me a bit of ShockofGods “proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct” question, which has multiple redundancies as well.

I got your point loud and clear, believe me, and decided to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually do want to learn about evolution so that you can better understand it. Won’t be making that mistake again.  

Do go and read the recommended books on the subject. Or don’t, but if you don’t, you will never learn.

I actually am planning to order a few books from amazon in the next couple of days and it is on the list. I don’t want to come across as someone who doesn’t want to learn in fear my beliefs are wrong, I just want to know for sure I’m right before I take a gamble. I am a Christian, as of right now I believe in the word of God and most likely will always believe in his word. However, I am not going to just let what other people tell is true and just say, okay and not question things. I will carefully read and analyze the information in the book and I will return and share my thoughts.

 “However, I am not going to just let what other people tell is true and just say, okay and not question things.”

You mean “other people,” like the people in your church community?  I would defer to the authority of generations of scientists over people who have been indoctrinated in a particular belief system.

I feel like you sincerely *believe* you are trying to learn something; but it seems that what you are really trying to do is reinforce your current belief system by desperately grasping at any possible hole in our knowledge (and scientists concur that there are a LOT of them still left to fill).  However, filling those knowledge gaps with “god” is simply not an answer, any more than attributing them to fairies or wizards.

Deepak Chopra *headdesk*

 It’s an interesting hypothesis. If it ever gets any supporting evidence, then come back and we might take it seriously.

way way way off the original topic, but here’s an interesting update on the history of human chromosome #2 (the fused one, which is why we have 23 and the other great apes have 24)

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/07/19/the-mystery-of-the-missing-chromosome-with-a-special-guest-appearance-from-facebook-creationists/ 

 Oh come on, you can’t be serious, this guy is at best a clown. I’m an open minded person, but i know nonsense when i see it.

 I can’t believe I didn’t notice that this question was never actually answered, it’s such an easy one.

Many things point to all species (plant and animal) descending from a single ancestor. Reversing evolution is one of them: multiple species combining over time until eventually only one remains. Another is DNA itself: the simple fact that every creature uses the same basic DNA system, if everything was specially created there’s no reason to think they’d all have DNA. Yet another is fetal development: the fact that nearly every creature starts development looking essentially like a fish, then amphibian, then reptile, then mammal, etc. (unless they are one of those groups, then they stop there). Those are only a few, you’ll find even more if you read “Why Evolution Is True” as has been recommended already.

Notice none of these things predict how that single ancestor came to be. In fact, creation is still a viable option for that first creature until we can figure out how it truly did happen. Actually this is the only time, considering the evidence we have for common descent, that any sort of divine creation could ever be a reasonable explanation (if you ignore the evidence required to show there is even a divine/supernatural anything ).

In other words, there is so much evidence for common descent that we can be highly confident that it’s true even though we don’t know how it happened yet. Abiogenesis is still largely hypothetical, but it’s the best explanation we’ve got until somebody finds proof for some other method. The burden of proof is very high, but it’s always possible that abiogenesis is wrong and divine creation of that ancestor is right.