Home » Intelligent Design » A Teacher Failed This Person

A Teacher Failed This Person

Steve Rueland writes More of What We’re Up Against. Unfortunately Steve fails to assign the proper blame here. What he’s up against is a high school science teacher that failed to teach the letter writer the basic laws of physics. These are your schools, Steve. We’re trying to wrest control of the science curriculum from your ilk for failures of exactly this kind. You cannot call fairy stories of time and chance being able to create life and all living things “science” and then expect the same students to believe real physical science. Once they know science teachers tell fairy stories and pretend they’re as factual as gravity they lose all trust in science teachers. We can spoonfeed this stuff to you, Stevey, if you’d stop making faces and spitting it out.

Update: It looks like a science teacher failed Gary Hurd too. Here he exhibits his ignorance of the evolution of the periodic table by saying that water didn’t evolve. Uh no, Gary, water did evolve. Here’s how. First generation stars were nothing but hydrogen. They fuse hydrogen and turn it into helium and energy. When they run out of hydrogen the core collapses and helium fuses into carbon and energy. This is the end of normal stars. However if the star is massive enough when the helium runs out the core collapses further and carbon starts fusing into oxygen plus energy. This process goes on until finally if a star is massive enough it finally explodes in a supernova burst and distributes all those heavier than hydrogen fusion products into gas clouds that eventually collapse to form stars and planets with heavy elements already in them. This is stellar evolution. So you see Gary, since water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, water is a product of (stellar) evolution. Now you know. Don’t bother thanking me. Furthering the education of Darwinian know-it-alls that don’t really know very much at all is my distinct pleasure.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

10 Responses to A Teacher Failed This Person

  1. Wow, that’s funny–sad, but funny! Poor woman. The sooner we can stop orthodox materialist dogma from being preached from the pulpits of our public schools, the better!

  2. You cannot call fairy stories of time and chance being able to create life and all living things “science” and then expect the same students to believe real physical science.

    HERE HERE!

    Or as Gabby Johnson (Blazing Saddles) would say: “RARRIT!”

  3. Do you know whether this woman went to a public school or a private school?

    Can you point to evidence that students who are not taught evolution in science classes have a better understanding of the other areas of science?

    Do you at all hold the people who taught her to believe literal Genesis accountable for her incompetence as well as whatever science teachers she had?

    Public or private school makes no difference. Both are required to teach physical science. Your first question has no merit. Genesis doesn’t teach that the precise speed of the earth’s rotation is what keeps us from feeling the motion of the planet so your third question has no merit either. Your second question isn’t so easily dismissed. No, I don’t have evidence that not teaching Darwinian dogma produces better understanding of real science. It’s just an educated guess based on the premise that if you lie to a child about something and he figures out you lied his trust in you is greatly diminished. That’s why you can’t tell a child that, for instance, marijuana use will destroy their lives. That clearly isn’t true, the child is eventually going to discover it isn’t true, and that child will then not trust you when you say that crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and narcotic addiction will destory their lives. You simply can’t feed a child lies that he can see through and expect that child to trust you on things he cannot see straight through. Maybe when you’re older and wiser you’ll understand I’m telling you the truth. -ds

  4. Until I read one of her previous opinion letters, I was convinced it was an exquisite satire. . . .

    What exactly did you find wrong with the previous letter? -ds

  5. Dave is absolutely right, this is more evidence of how evolution and materialism has completely corrupted our children’s science education. . Wmust destroy current science to save it.

  6. I’m sorry, that should have read “Dave is absolutely right, this is more evidence of how evolution and materialism has completely corrupted our children’s science education. We must destroy current science to save it.”

  7. I tell ya, it gets harder and harder to read this thing, but I just can’t help coming back to it. It’s like a car wreck. Shouldn’t watch, but can’t help myself.

    I tell ya, it gets harder and harder for me to not tell you that only one of the scores of comments you’ve made here in the last 10 weeks was seen by anyone other than me. This comment makes two. I should’ve told you sooner but it might mean you’d stop leaving little gems for me in the spam bucket amongst all the advertisements for viagra and online casinos that are automatically filtered out of the comment stream for dismissal. I feel so close to you by now. Tell me how’s the weather in music city, what else do you do for entertainment, and where on campus are each of the three computers you’ve used to send comments to me? -ds

  8. Perhaps this is not a case of someone learning about evolution, and then throwing all science to the scrap heap, as you suggest but instead a case of someone who did not receive a real education on evolution to begin with, as it would appear that in some areas of the country, schools simply not complying with the standards set out for them is not entirely uncommon:

    http://www.arktimes.com/Articl.....5e949ef950

    Reading something like ‘how did water evolve?’ makes me think that this is more likely, since it is the sort of question that someone who was only familiar with the word ‘evolution’ would ask, and not the sort of question someone who knew about the theory of evolution, but didn’t accept it would ask.

    This wasn’t about the person not learning about evolution. Evolution has nothing at all to do with why we don’t feel the earth spinning under our feet. You do understand the difference between evolution and gravity don’t you? I have to ask given you’re one of the dumbass Uncommon Pissant posters. Oh, and just so you know, water did evolve. You’re just a poster child for the dumbing down of America. Heavy elements like oxygen are a result of stellar evolution and without oxygen there’s no water. Water evolved. -ds

  9. Oh man. Thanks for providing the Uncommon Pissant link, Dave. I hadn’t been there before. They really are very funny. They stay right on top of you! I especially enjoy how if one mentions God, they get warned. Nice. Not very Christian, but nice.

  10. “This wasn’t about the person not learning about evolution. Evolution has nothing at all to do with why we don’t feel the earth spinning under our feet. You do understand the difference between evolution and gravity don’t you? I have to ask given you’re one of the dumbass Uncommon Pissant posters. Oh, and just so you know, water did evolve. You’re just a poster child for the dumbing down of America. Heavy elements like oxygen are a result of stellar evolution and without oxygen there’s no water. Water evolved. -ds”

    You’re confusing two definitions of evolution. There is one sense in which it is a word which can describe many processes, and there is another which deals strictly with the theory of evolution. This second sense is the one for which the woman wants an answer.

    Further, the fact that she doesn’t understand gravity does not prove she learned about evolution. I’m not entirely sure how you arrived at the conclusion that this is an effective rebuttal, but it’s just as possible that she had a poor education on that subject than that she had a real education on gravity and decided to reject it.

    Do you honestly expect that someone who was familiar with the theory of evolution would write “How does it happen that gravity can hold us to the Earth, and at the same time allow us to step up without any trouble? How did it happen that the Earth is spinning at the exact rate that keeps us from feeling that movement?”

    If this woman had actually learned about evolution, her dismissal of it would be on target, it would call into question things that actually have to do with the theory. If she hadn’t learned about it, we would expect her dismissal to include things which are entirely unrelated to evolution, as it does.

    I think the mistake you are making is that someone who learns about science and rejects it -still knows the science-, they just don’t believe it. This is different (and you’re not seeing this difference) than someone who didn’t know about the science in the first place. It’s not hard to see that this woman is the latter, rather than the former.

    This is different (and you’re not seeing this difference) than someone who didn’t know about the science in the first place. It’s not hard to see that this woman is the latter, rather than the former.

    So what you’re saying is that a science teacher failed to teach science to this woman. I agree. :P -ds

Leave a Reply