You're a horrible teacher. You should apologize to OP in front of the class.

#1 There's a button for that #23 Re-read the FML

Indoctrination at its finest.

I don't know why this has so many dislikes #23 she's a teacher? how you know?

I'm pretty sure #23 is saying that to #1 as in #1 is apologizing because she's the teacher because that's who is the only person who should apologize. sheesh people so quick to jump down people's throats!

What does it mean to be sprry?

#134; Sprry Definition: to misspell or otherwise mistype a word because phone screens are too small Synonyms: fuxk, duck, lll

#23 the op wasnt the teacher -_-

I wouldn't be surprised if they would. For a 'qualified' teacher to say something so uneducated and blatantly ignorant is an absolute disgrace to science, education and every '****-sapien' he doesn't think exists.

Assuming OP attends a private school, private schools are exempt from being required to hire certified teachers. Private schools can set their own criteria for what a "qualified" teacher is. My step-mother teaches at a private school where a few teachers don't even have bachelor degrees. So it's possible the teacher isn't qualified by public school standards. Which is a disturbing statement.

Yeah". We're HETEROsapiens. ;-D

What's so sad about this is the fact that a book with mythical creatures and fictional stories (the bible) is being taken more seriously than science and evidence proving the bible to be false.

Ikr

Modern day humans are actually called **** sapien sapiens. Technically, it is a subgroup of **** sapiens, but there are many other subgroups too. Many of our recent ancestors, Neanderthals included, are **** sapiens too, but they are called **** sapien neanderthalensis. Anyway, although we are a subgroup of **** sapiens, the teacher was probably saying that the rest of the subgroups aren't real, implying that there is no such thing as evolution.

#107 deserves more likes for this comment. He is absolutely right. **** sapian sapians are a subgroup that evolved from **** sapians, of whom came across the landbridge around 10-15 or so thousand years ago. But, even while she might be implying that evolution is 'fake', we are still **** sapians, so at the end of the day she inevitably still mentioned she doesn't believe in humans.

#107 Or at least no such thing as human evolution. Thanks for the clarification, although I'm guessing the teacher's questions had nothing to do with their understanding of evolutionary sub-groups and everything to do with their complete ignorance about those Latin terms.

Guys I'm well aware of the subgroups but humans are a sub category of **** Sapiens meaning if **** Sapiens as a whole were not real humans would not exist. I am in AP Biology but thank you for clarifying for others.

I don't think the teacher is that smart #107

Obviously not.

Must be fun going to school with a bunch of Neanderthals.

#4: "No sapiens" - many times worse than "no ****".

#47, they'll go extinct soon :)

Well, where else would he go?

Georgia

The Devil only goes to Georgia when he is looking for a soul to steal

bedazzled! I love that part.... WHAT THE HAIL! AWWWW DAMN THE DEVIL! DAMN THE DEVIL TO HAIL!

What kind of teacher? A very bad one. As a Christian myself I believe the problem doesn't stem from the "religious" part of the school itself. But more the, seemingly, rather poor teacher.

Didn't realise some religious schools could be so subjective....I'd understand to some extent if this were a religious education class but if you're gonna teach something like bio then they should really keep their views out of the syllabus and just teach bio or whatever class OP was in...

for real, do they have a criminal justice class there? if so, taking shit that literal would be so dark

It's not about whether you believe in it or not...**** sapien is the scientific term for a human being. The teacher is just a complete idiot and doesn't have a basic knowledge of science!

At least that school.

Indoctrination. Obvi.

Because it's the only way religion won't entirely die off in the mainstream.

Nothing wrong with private schools in general. Many do a great job teaching all subjects, sometimes even better than local public schools. The problem just arises when nutcases are given teaching licenses and they're allowed or encouraged to teach their own personal beliefs, rather than giving students all the facts and allowing students to make up their own minds.

36, although I agree with your comment,. The guy above asked what's the point of religious schools, not private. I would also like to know solid reasons behind why religious schools are a good idea. Because I can't think of one.

A lot of private schools also happen to be religious schools, such as catholic schools, because you can't really teach religion in classes in public school. Other than having it in a brief section for a world studies class that is. I know there are private schools that aren't religious, but a fair amount are simply because public schools can't really teach religion like the religious private schools would like to

Not all religious schools are like that. I attend a Catholic college and the courses are quite challenging. And they do believe in evolution.

Not all religious schools are like this and the point of them is so that religion is not restricted and they usually have a better environment than public schools.

I think it's also important to note that the majority of private schools aren't restricted by their funding nearly as much as public schools and provide a better education. Not only do they have tuition to fall back on, but many get public funding as well. So while many of us may not agree with the purpose of religious schooling, it actually unintentionally creates a pretty great situation. Not only are you surrounded by people of similar socioeconomic status with similar belief systems (so you can be comfortable and focus on your studies), but you also have resources that public schools need to scrape together funding for. EDIT: The "similar" portion came out a bit discriminatory, I simply mean people generally feel more comfortable around people who are like themselves, that's just fact.

I agree that the school OP is going to doesn't sound good. All the Christian schools I went to were great. They even taught us a bit about evolution so we wouldn't lag behind scientifically. They were certainly better at helping individuals learn more than any public school I went to. They are less restricted about meeting a certain standard that they actually go above that standard.

#8 Sounds like that school is doing a great job of miseducating, given the class laughed at OP and not the teacher. But then for some religious schools, that's the goal when it comes to science.

I agree I'm an atheist that went to a religious school. They told 14yr old students not to wear condoms because of their beliefs. Also telling lies such as they don't really protect from HIV and other sexual diseases. I tell you this disgusts me, their basically embracing STDs and early pregnancy

#118 - I'm normally not a grammar Nazi, but since we *are* talking about education, did they also teach you how to use "their" incorrectly?

#85, the part of similar beliefs is something I will disagree on. Its a bad idea to expose children to an educational setting where everyone has the same belief system/ideas. Children should be exposed to a setting of diversity and of challenging ideas. The real world is diverse and full of all kinds of people. If people are uncomfortable by those who are different, then I dunno what to say on that. We need a more free thinking society that encourages thought and diversity.

#128 - Maybe in America, if you don't succeed. If you're in corporate, you can just work your way up the ladder by being educated enough.

Because you have to brainwash them when they're young while there's still a chance for them to believe the bullshit.

I went to a religious school as a kid (k-4th) and they did a decent job at teaching, hell religion was rarely in most of our lessons. The only religious things I remember is we had prayers at the beginning and end of the day.

I've seen so many of them deny the data is correct- even with proof. It's not gonna help.

Agree with 38. As much as I believe the vast majority of Christians, in the UK at least, still believe in evolution/science/etc., the REAL crazy ones cannot be saved. They say that the 'evidence' was put there by God as a test of faith. Even I don't know how you argue against that. :/

my friend claims Jews buried dinosaur bones to usurp the legitimacy of the bible. since falls on deaf ears to the extreme

Science*

To be fair it's still a theory. Not a Law

I know someone who said dinosaur bones were put there as a present from God so we would have something to discover. But I don't think he believed dinosaurs actually existed. I might be remembering wrong.

#56 actually, a scientific theory is just about as good as it gets. Most laws of science are just theories as well.

#56 I agree with you. Evolution is still a theory and there's no real proof on evolutionary explanations that are thought as facts. Rather the opposite, there are a lot of true scientist that believe this life cannot have come from a random explosion and an "organic soup" resulting in the delicate equilibrium and designs. Yes I know I'm not going to be popular with my comment and will be buried. But that's what I believe and feel proud of.

Actually there aren't facts on evolution it's literally called Charles Darwin's theory of evolution because it's just an idea that has yet to be proven so while the teacher in the case was awful, it's more to do with the teacher than with religion

Denying evolution is denying that things can drastically change over time based on stimuli. If you want to see it done, get bacteria and slowly change the environment of it. After some life cycles you'll end up with bacteria that has different properties than the original colony. That's evolution. And for the record, a scientific theory is not equal to the colloquial theory, a scientific theory is something that only happens when something is just about as true as it gets. When every criticism has shown not to hold its weight against it time and time again. So evolution is legit, stop getting your "facts" off of unpublished, unreviewed, religious websites. and you call it "Charle's Darwin's Theory of Evolution" because the scientist who uncovered something so amazing should be credited with his work.

#51 - As a half Jew, I need to let my people know that the outsiders are onto us. Not even our double agent, Jesus, would be able to stop them if word spreads!

To the ignorant folks who are saying it's just a "theory"... So is the THEORY of gravity! You aren't about to go test that one out, are you? ;)

Gravity is only a theory. In mathematics and science something is called a conjecture until proven, then it is called a theory

#64, you are part of that subgroup of people who don't know whqt evolution is. Evolution is CHANGE OVER TIME. Evolution is fact, as it happens all the time. HOW it happens is the theory. Genetic drift, natrual selection, directional shift. These are theories of how it happens. Get your facts straight. Lots of things actually support evolution. We know that the Earth had actually been void of oxygen. Glycolysis happens outside the mitochondria for a reason. Earth's first living organisms were anaerobic, meaning they didn't need oxygen to synthesize ATP. I could go on about all the evidence that life originated from a common ancestor, but I won't go there as this is fml and doesn't need to get any more serious.

Do you know what the word 'theory' means? -.-

Evolution isn't true. There are many errors like, what about organisms that depend on each other to survive like certain fungi? Evolution claims that they evolved at different times.

or they evolved alongside each other.

You are confusing theory and hypothesis. 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. A hypothesis means, a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Scientific theory is different from a colloquial theory. In science, nothing is fact, they are all considered theories. But a theory is something that is backed up by a lot of evidence.

Scientific theory has a very specific definition. It is an assertion about how the universe works that fits within all the evidence currently available that can, in the right circumstances, be disproven, at which point it is discarded or revised to account for the new evidence. You never prove a theory 'true;' at most you see how well it continues to stand up to attempts to disprove it. Evolution is a good scientific theory, though it is still evolving (no pun intended). Problems with the fossil record appear to contraindicate Darwinian gradualism, and there is trouble explaining the mechanisms behind a punctualistic model, as an example. And certainly some evolutionary scientists and teachers have committed intellectually dishonest behavior: the famous black and white moths are an egregious example (the moths, which perch on the undersides of leaves, were glued to bark to imply adaptation not actually in evidence), as were the 'evolutionary stages' of the fetus (complete bs) and the fact that people relaying Darwin's observations of the finches during a drought always seem to leave out the fact that those adaptations disappeared as soon as the rain returned, meaning he was only observing temporary changes within a species and not permanent adaptation into a new one. All of this having been stated, so far the theory of evolution has held up quite well. Creationism, frankly, cannot be considered a scientific theory as advocated by most because it admits no possibility of disproval: for those subscribing to it, it is an article of faith, not a testable explanation. I personally dislike people referring to scientific 'facts.' From a scientific point of view, ALL things are subject to testing, and to revising what we know based on the evidence we gather. And it is not unusual to have competing theories attempting to explain the same things in apparently utterly contradictory ways. However a good, well tested and consistent theory should not be just ignored or discarded as 'just' a theory. Until and unless the theory of evolution DOES manage to get disproven or otherwise an equally resilient and testable alternative is offered, it is the best explanation from a scientific point of view.