The Atheist Professor With No Brain

The Atheist Professor with no Brain

Doug Kreuger has expanded the well-known Christian legend of the atheist philosophy professor who is unable to prove that he has a brain.

"LET ME EXPLAIN THE problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes, sir."

"So you believe in God?"


"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"


"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment.

"Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here, and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't."

No answer.

"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

No answer.

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"


"Where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From...God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"


"Who created evil?"

No answer.

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them?"

No answer.

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climb into the Christian's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?" No answer. The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

No answer.

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause. "Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?"

No answer.

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your Jesus?"

"No, sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus... In fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

No answer.

"Answer me, please."

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"


"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"

The student doesn't answer.

"Sit down, please."

The Christian sits...Defeated.

Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come,

come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"

'Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.

The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458 - You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."Silence.

A pin drops somewhere in the classroom. "Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"


"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly, you have nothing, and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you...give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him.

This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?" The class is all ears.

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That for example there is life and then here's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it." The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless.

The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare. "Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face spits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"

The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?"

The class breaks out in laughter.

The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?"

No one appears to have done so.

The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain."

The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.

The professor, amused at the student's antics, asks the student whether he's ever read anything about science.

"No," says the student. "I only know what I've heard in church."

"That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man," says the professor. "Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist."

"Oh," said the Christian.

"No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it."

"Oh, I see. That makes sense," said the Christian student.

"Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn't be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?" said the professor.

"I guess not."

"In fact, if I had no brain I couldn't do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!"

The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.

"Evolution is known to be true because of evidence," continued the professor. "It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley's "Firing Line" show. Did you see it?"

The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, "My mom won't let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith."

The professor shook his head sadly. "Knowledge does have a way of doing that," he said. "But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed."

The Christian student sputters, "You--you mean we HAVE seen it?"

"Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?"

"Uh, no."

"Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London's underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos. But enough about evolution. That doesn't have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?"


"What does it have to do with our issue?" asked the professor.

"Well, if you don't believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes."

The professor laughed. "Evolutionists don't believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor."

"Wow!" said the Christian. "That's not what they told me at church."

"I'm sure. They can't refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don't you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?"

"I didn't know that."

"In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on William F. Buckley's 'Firing Line,' which I just mentioned, two of them were theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact."


"Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?"

"I guess not."

"Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant."

"I see that now," said the Christian. "I don't even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence."

"Well," said the professor. "As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones."

"I'm guess learning already," said the student, looking at the floor.

"But back to the problem of evil," said the professor. "You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?"

The student said lifelessly: "If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil." It was evident that this was something the student had learned by rote and had often repeated.

The professor shrugged his shoulders. "Okay, let's suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?"

"There is the absence of good," said the student.

"But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it."

The student looked confused. "But why should he prevent it? It's not his fault."

"If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, 'It's not my fault,' we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil."

The Christian student thought for a moment. "I guess I'd have to agree."

"So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil," said the professor. "At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it."

The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. "But that's according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can't judge him by our standards."

The professor laughed. "Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed."

"I don't understand," said the student, wrinkling his brow.

"If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?" "Of course it is," said the Christian student. "That's what a car is."

"But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it's not a car?"

"No," said the student. "It still fits the definition of a car. That's what we mean by saying that it's a car. It doesn't fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn't call it that."

"Exactly," said the professor. "If it fits the definition, then that's what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be 'good' in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good."

"I don't believe it!" said the Christian student. "A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn't fit the definition of good, so he's not good."

"There you go," said the professor.

"But wait a minute," said the student. "God could still be good in some other definition even if we don't call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he's good. Even if we couldn't call him good, that doesn't mean that he isn't good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway."

"Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition," said the professor.

"Why not?" "Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition."

"That's right!" said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. "If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that's his definition of eternity!"

"Now you're thinking!" said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. "This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students."

The Christian student continued. "God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that's his definition of keeping a promise!"

"Yes, yes," said the professor.

"I can't believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It's so indefensible," said the student, shaking his head. "Just a few moment's thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse."

"So it would seem," said the professor.

"I'm going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure didn't tell me the truth about evolution!"

The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain--because that's what it's for. The other students in the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had witnessed the changing of a person's life, the redirection of a young mind from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth.

The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester.

infintessimal infintessimal 18-21, F 24 Responses Nov 20, 2008

Your Response


The long diatribe fails to answer the atheist professors original point - if god is good - why is there evil?

Freewill is no answer. It is a dumb answer.

Presumably there is no evil in heaven. Presumably people in heaven have freewill (otherwise they would be slaves). Therefore it is possible to have freewill and no evil in the same state of existence. So why not on earth?

I only made it through a few, as it was just the same prattling thing over and over again.

1) If you're going to use the "absence is merely absence and is not a separate thing" attack, I'll use it back. If you claim that bad is the absence of good, then sin is the absence of holiness, and how can I be punished for something that isn't there?

2) You do realize that anything that is an opposite can be claimed to "not exist" by simply saying it is the absence of its polar opposite, don't you? I can claim blindness doesn't exist, it is just the total lack of sight. But it's not. It's blindness. It's a things all its own, and it is not the total absence of sight. It is the lack there of, and thus sight is not involved whatsoever, making blindness a different thing. As with cold. Cold is the lack of heat, which means it is not there, which means it cannot be involved in the equation, which means "cold" becomes a different thing.

3) Grammatically speaking, if you have words like "good, bad, evil, just, etc," in front of "god" it becomes a noun. "God" as in the name to represent Jehovah is a proper noun. "He" is a noun. If I were to put, "Zeus is amazing, and He is all powerful." people laugh, but for someone reason, when it takes on the character Jehovah, it's not wrong.

Q) If I told you they were teaching creationism in schools for Muslims, Pagans, and Buddhists, how would you respond?

Oh, forgot to add this in, but do you have proof of this happening or is it something you/someone else made up?

So many trolls in this thread... If any one of the fundies posting here had the slightest knowledge of how science actually works, maybe they could understand and respond to our arguments, rather than simply regurgitating the same bile that was spewed at them from a pulpit somewhere by a man who also had 0 understanding of science and how the world actually works.

Progressive, you're getting your terms mixed up. In science, what we call a 'theory' is something that has been tested enough that we believe it, with the knowledge we have presently, to be fact. This can of course change if we find different, contradictory evidence down the line. That's the great thing about science: it doesn't do dogmatic adherence to an idea DESPITE ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

What you're thinking of, incidentally, is called a 'hypothesis' - an untested idea that, at this point, may or may not be true. However, both evolution and gravity are both accepted by 99.99% of scientists as theories -- that is, in scientific terminology, FACT.

Progressive, I can't make heads or tails of your comment. But I suspect that I gathered the gist of it... Yes, dumbass, gravity is a theory. And clearly, you cannot grasp the concept of evolution. By selective pressure, it means natural selection. So, when your cousin Jim-Bob eats rat poison because he is too stupid to tell if it is people food or not, he dies and his genes leave the gene pool. Thereby eliminating his stupidity, giving humanity a chance at breeding smarter people who don't eat rat poison. It is such a simple concept, it is beyond me why people like you don't get it. Oh, wait. Eat some rat poison and give humanity chance. Logicked your ***. Kthx.

Hum.. if evolution is a process of selective "pressure".. can someone please bottle me an ouch of this "selective" pressure or describe it properties.

O. gravity is not a theory. Push a glass off a table a few time and tell me it a "theory"

good is a subjective term. Many belive evolution in its simplest form, survival of the fittest is bad. The idea that evolution is a totally random process is also wrong. The random variations are also subject to selective pressure and under that selection process the variations are magnified and retained in specific populations that adapt to become species. Intelligent design is not intelligent at all if one considers the number of extinct species that obviously didn't work out. There is no observabale or repeatable evidence of ID - the pre-requisite for a scientific basis. Falling back on the old saw that we don't know everything about various aspects of natural history doesn't mean that any alternative is either possible or worthy of consideration. We actually don't know what we don't know but we will.

Creationism is irrelevant for the proof of God.

The Vedas, are a tradition who believe in a god.

Some of the Vedas believe that there is no cause for this, as there is no cause of a god.

This, has always been there, and has been changing and evolving and will keep changing and evolving as the play of god.

The big bang theory, the theory above, and the god theory could all three coexist.

It has the possibility to coexist, in here.

Just adding this, to help stretch your brain.

God, is existance itself. And the existance of that, is undeniable.

God is consciousness, god is existance.

The buddhist say so, the vedas say so, the hindus say so,

Even the bible says so.

In the bible it says that; 'I am that i am', and that is all that has to be said.

Which means; I am, that 'I am', which is the sense of 'I exist,

which is consciousness, which is existance itself.

Also, what i want to add, as a response to the text above which is highly flawed;

where the professor proceeds to proof that this God is evil,

he just passed through a beautiful evidence that god is good.

And that is, Evolution.

Evolution is goodness, and proofs the goodness of God, as goodness in its creation.

Because Evolution, works towards ballance, and ballance, is good.

Good, towards the whole of creation that is... and only that, can be called good.

Also, the inaction of God, is neutrality, which is good!

I could go on for hours.

God, which is existance, is undeniable.

And it is good!

Have a nice day y'all ;-)

winstonwelles, in your above reply to the Christian, isn't that only describing microevolution?

Oh yeah also... Creationism isn't ******* science. Creationism is looking at what a centuries old, butchered, many times translated and ****** around with text claims to have happened at the beginning. So, tell me. How is the bible scientific AT ALL? Please, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

Oh, also, if you really did some digging on your silly little cult you'd realize that the story of your messiah is that of multiple messiahs throughout history. Here, let me help you:

Seriously, just think a little bit, man.

Okay, Iceraider.... you are ******* stupid. All the "different" types of evolution you jsut stated are ALL THE SAME THING. You just said it in different ways. As for your pug turning into a Great Dane comment... Holy ****, dude. Eat a ******* bullet, will you? Where do I start with that little paragraph?

First off: Yes, evolution is still a theory. So is gravity. Theory means there has been no evidence to counter what we have discovered (except for your silly ideas which if you choose to call them that. I'd settle for "a bunch of idiots whose lives will seem worthless without the concept of God and any new idea differing from that of the Bronze Age is frightening). If anything, we continually find evidence that progresses our theory. Bringing more evolution **** to light.

Secondly: You obviously have no ******* clue how evolution works. It takes a f**kton of time for **** evolve. You could probably breed pugs to be more like Great Danes but it'd take a long *** time. Does this make sense to you? Maybe you should pay more attention in school. Read up a bit more on evolution before you open your ******* mouth.


ugh you're an idiot; at least think before you speak.

think about what iceraider28 said. now multiply it by 5000; THAT's evolution: tell me, if you gave a monkey a type-writer, and 10 billion years, would he come out with a book? no

now think for a moment about DNA. the simplest and most primitive of cells' DNA would fill up thousands of books. DNA that is so excrutiatingly specific that just one wrong base pair would mean faulty DNA and no life. it's excrutiating precise.

put random molecules together, give it a TRILLION years, and i will bet a million bucks that it will never combine in such an excruciatingly precise and specific sequence.

basically what you believe is that by random molecules bumping into each other, DNA was created that actually worked. and it couldn't have just worked. it needed to program the cell to make proteins for metabolism, and very specific sequences of amino acids. rememeber, something like this would fill up thousands of books for the simplest of DNA.

i can't even CONTEMPLATE the probability - or rather, the lack of it - for that to happen over the course of a TRILLION years.

so next time THINK before you post, mkay?

A monkey does not need to write a book.., the Theory of evolution does not speak about posibility, speaks about survivality, if the monkey does not need to write that book, he wont, i mean, why would he. About the DNA thing. First of all you don't even seem to know how this started (of course we ain't sure either). There are many theories about the first living forms, so there is no reason or fact that says: simplest and most primitive cells had DNA. That aint completly true, you can't know that. There is a theory about the RNA, known as the world first living thing, much simplier and random than the DNA. It is in fact hard to prove, but, that does not mean DNA was the first macromolec at all. Sry abt dis eng.

You simply demonstrate the lack of understanding of chaos, randomness and directed selection. Throwing nails and wood in the air will not build a house so what? any moron knows that. Talk a bit about how speciation occurs when isolated variants of a population are subjected to differential environmental pressures and then get back to us. recognise the concept of Darwinism, ORIGIN of SPECIES...............ORIGIN of LIFE is another topic.

As for your opening statement that creationism is proven by science I refer you to the comments of your creationist supporters that to be proven by science means observable and repeatable, so when did you observe the creation and when is it going to be repeated???????

Who are u to say Creationism in not an equal scientific theory to evolution. Creationism is proven by science, that same thing u claim can prove evolution.

I can prove evolution is wrong with common sense.

A building cannot be made without intelligent design. Throwing up wood and nails does not make a building. No complex thing in this universe can be made out of chaos or chance. When u do make something with chaos, tell me!

Just like evolution, no complex organism, like us, can be made out of chaos and chance. It had to have intelligent design, God.

A book has many works and letter in it. It is written in a complex language with rules and correct punctuation. Evolution is by chance we got here, or a process we got here, no intelligent design.

But can a book be created without intelligent design. In u saying evolution is real, u are saying a book 100 pages long, all making sense and with correct grammar, punctuation and rules, is created by a computer with no outside help, no programing from intelligent design.

Or a photocopier exploded and created a book 100 pages long, all making sense and with correct grammar, punctuation and rules.

These are not different theories of evolution. They are some elements of the overall theory. all you do is describe some adaptive processes. Evolutionists will agree that the process is best recognised when the adaptive processes lead to speciation. all darwin said is variablilty exists in the phenotype and under selection pressures changes can happen. Things developed from that. As for the issue about issue is that religion should be taught in religious class. Creationism is not an equal scientific theory to evoution. The biblical story is not an alternative natural philosphy is a faith. You're welcome to it but keep it in your church or your faith school i don't want my education system contaminated by it.

I am deeply offended by what this story says, the statements against Christians are all lies!

Even the evolutionist statements are lies!

u dont have a story at all, both sides are not real.

U may not think there is anything wrong with this, u may think this is just a story, u may think i am just another Christian with no argument. well u are wrong

U probably think i am another Christian who takes offense to everything. You are incorrect. I take offense because u say things against us that are lies.

One example is we dont let christian children watch secular shows, documentaries and science shows, all LIES.

I dont take offense to everything, but u are attacking me personally, u are attacking every Christian personally. But how would u like it if i personally attacked u, if i called ur mother a (insert rude word here), u would take offense to it, that is a personal attack. I bet u would take offense.

This is an example of how u lie saying Christians do not know anything about evolutionists:

"Well, if you don't believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes."

The professor laughed. "Evolutionists don't believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor."

This statement by the professor is incorrect!

There are 6 different views of evolution, not the one, not every evolutionist believes this.

You may think all we do is teach children that evolutionists believe we came from apes, incorrect again.

Here are the six types:

1. Evolution as the history of nature - It is just change in the world, any change is evolution

2. Evolution as Gene Frequency Change - geneticists study change in the frequency of alleles in gene pools, any change in this is evolution

3. Evolution as limited common descent - many different varieties of similar organisms within different species, genera or families are related by common ancestry.

4. Evolution as a mechanism that produces limited change or descent with modification - natural selection with slight random changes in genetic variations (mutations)

5. Evolution as universal common descent - all organism come from one or very few common ancestors.

6. Blindwatchmaker thesis - One of the Darwinian ideas that all things come from unguided, purposeless genetic changes or mutations, we are random. Like a blind watchmaker making a watch, by chance we are who we are.

See, even evolutionists are divided by how we got here.

BTW evolution may be taught as a fact, but it is still a theory. If u can show me someone that has bought a pug, sat down and seen or showed it to turn into a Great Dane (or visa versa) tell me!

How can u say we have flawed arguments, u have not yet proved any of our arguments are flawed. Yet u say they are.

check it

"Humanity's best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today." - and the thing is, that's not because anyone's trying to "convert people to atheism", it's just the way science works - people believe the most rationally convincing argument. And while I'm not sure creation has ever been the *most* rational argument, at least not since the only alternative was "just.... because, alright?", it was a lot more believable before Darwin came up with a good explanation for speciation (and that's all it even is! The way some of them talk you'd think Darwin came up with Big Bang theory...) argh. [/rant]

You said yourself that your beliefs aren't contradictory, therefore, this doesn't apply to you. The point of this post was to point out the flaws in flawed arguments for evolution and things of that matter, that's all.

I highly doubt that you are just some dimwit, cripplecrow.

Here, here winstonwelles.

"Evolution is taught as fact, not theory" - well firstly "evolution", as in changes in genotype between generations, is an observable fact, go breed fruit flies if you disagree. Or buy a pug and a Great Dane and have a long hard think. Of course we can only -theorise- that natural selection pressures might, theoretically, be able to achieve what we know for a fact selective breeding can. Oh, of course we *could* look at bacteria doing precisely that, being naturally selected for resistance to antibiotics, but who studies bacteria? SCIENTISTS. And we all know whose side they're on, am I right?

I grow tired of being called stupid. Not by you, mind you, you didnt. Those people that ridicule me because I have faith and they do is wearing.
The original posting is, after all, a fabricated story, and not even original at that. The original story stated that the second student was Albert Einstein, which was not the case. So, somebody decided to add to that story.
As it is, I am in this group because I disagree with the premise, not because I agree with it. But I have a different perspective, from that of faith, and was simply trying to make an observation.
Evolution, you see, is currently taught as fact, not theory. From my point of view, this is an attempt to separate those students that have a faith from their faith. Hence my comment about being called stupid. It has happend too many times and I am sick and tired of it.
The buzz word these days is 'tolerance'. It used to mean that one disagreed with an action or belief but allowed it anyway to be civil. These days it means acceptance of everything/everybody/every lifestyle. Except, of course, Christianity.
Please note that I have not shared my faith. I would like to, but have found that the response generally has something to do about shoving beliefs down throats. I am not going to force you to believe anything you dont want to. In turn, I would appreciate it if I were not also forced to believe what I dont believe, even if it goes under the name of 'science'.

Hm. Well, I am not trying to push anything down your throat at all. You believe what you believe and I don't believe what I don't believe. If you read my last post you would know that this experience was created for satirical reasons. The creator told me herself. I am simply expressing myself as you are, I have not picked anyone in particular and aimed this post at them, I am just putting it out there.

Also, the professor's argument is incredibly undeniable, while the Christian's is mind-blowingly full of fallacies and rubbish. Even before the professor tore it to shreds, I was.

And btw, you're in a group called Creationism Should Be Taught in Schools, and yore asking me not to force my beliefs down people's throats? Hypocrisy's a *****, no?

Sadly typical. Man wanting to define god based on what man has seen or experienced. It is inferred that mankind, specifically 'science', is the source of all knowledge. And this view is pushed down the throats of those that do not so believe, whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, or whatever. 'You must believe what we call fact!!!'

Science is science, it is not god. Or, in your eyes, maybe it is, and you are trying to convert others to your 'belief' as you would not like others trying to convert you to their beliefs. I am not attempting to shove my belief down your throat; please dont try to shove your belief (whether you call it 'scientific fact' or not) down mine.