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. -ds

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

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

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

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

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!”