Why do people deny evolution?

There was a professor of French i once knew (sadly, he died about 20 years ago) who just barely published enough to keep his position. He was a full professor, though, so he was pretty fire-proof. One of his best publications was one entitled (if i recall correctly) "Let the Students Do the Taling." In his classes, if someone asked a question, he didn't supply the answer, the polled the members of the class, sometimes more than once, untill they came up with the right answer. I worked in the French Department at the university, but i also took classes, and his were well-attened and popular. I once asked him why he had come up with his method, and he told me when he had begun his career as a professor of French, he had a student who knew more than most of the instructors (who were, for undergraduates, usually grad students), and that even he, himself learned things from that student. He said it was humbling to realize that he was embarking on a teaching career, and yet didn't have all the answers. He also told me that over the years, he had continued to learn things from his students. He also told me that the experience had led him out of the "publish or perish" herd and that his greatest enjoyment came from engaging young minds who really wanted to learn.

First Rule of teaching college

1. "Why are you doing any of their work ?"
Even the ENglih departments use that rule.

I recall one of the Jesuits in High school started the year telling us that "Learning is an active verb. I can teach well and you can still learn nothing, and I can teach poorly and you can still learn a great deal. My real goal is to induce or force you to make the efort as you require it of me" He was very good at it.

Yeah, people like that are jewels, and are, unfortunately, uncommon. I've just recalled his name, Francis Nachtmann. In his classes (his specialty field was phonics, pronunciation and dialects), the students would start out sort of stupefied, but pretty soon, an excitement level built up. Not very many of them missed class.

I fully understand the French professor you described. I rarely give direct answers. I either ask leading questions in response to a question or give hints until somebody figures it out. My students (the ones who succeed, anyway) will be teachers in the future, so I emphasize to them that learning how to learn (teach yourself, really) is more important than the answer to any particular question.

(Something obligatory about evolution goes here.)

Indeed. Motivated students will learn no matter what the teacher does, and unmotivated students won't learn no matter what the teacher does. Part of "teach to the middle" for me is to aim for those students on the verge of either gaining or losing motivation.

Interesting...

The Faces of Ancient Hominids Brought to Life in Remarkable Detail

See photos at: http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/faces-ancient-hominids-brought-life-remarkable-detail-001465#sthash.aJwStGOZ.dpuf

Interesting, indeed! Since they used bone fragments, I wonder how quohog et al are going to challenge this sequence?

Maybe, the bible has something to say about this. LOL

I'm sure something in there can be twisted around to suit their purposes.

I wouldn't get too excited or quick to be convinced since there are as many different facial reconstructions of early hominids as there are paleoartists. This is more an ART, and even though its damned realistic, it may be all wet. Remember all the different reconstructions of Neanderthals? forensic facial reconstructions can be checked with available photos of victims. paleoguys cannot. So, more and more detail doesn't improve the accuracy. In fact, it often hides the possible misunderstandings.

Yeah, even though facial reconstruction has come a long way in the last few years, I'm sure there are a lot of parameters lacking, such as skin thickness and whatnot. I wouldn't hail the work linked to above as being exact replications, but I don't see much reason to doubt that they're pretty close.

I think they can be pretty close. I've seen computer generated facial features developed from bones. I don't remember where or when, but I'm sure I've seen them. Either from criminologists or ancient bones.

It's probably pretty safe to extrapolate data from primates, too, since their DNA is going to be closer to that of early hominids.

     It is not a statement - this is an IF clause: IF FM ever have had the whole information about what he is claiming to know, he would have been able to produce not only vaccines in reduced terms, but also to deactivate the viruses 'on the flight' without any need of any vaccines ... and perhaps some of the retro viruses, used in the past in irresponsible genetic engineering trials that 'went out of control' might have not appeared in the first place.
     If FM knew anything, about any biological processes driving life and evolution, he would have been able to design brand new 'original' teeth (as auto-clones) and re-implant them back in the place of the extracted ones ... not to say that he would have been able to recover the tooth on its place to its former glory. Why don't FM tells us that the evolutionists are light years away form anything of the kind.
     It is not about vaccines and teeth - it is to show the hugeness of the gap in the knowledge that the fans of the evolution have when then claim that they know everything about live and evolution. In order to prove that they don't know exactly everything it is enough to prove that they have no idea of how to make some bio-products that are feasible ... and even might have been observed as phenomenology.
     The problem is not that FM cannot make a vaccine in ten hours - the real problem is that he does not have even the slightest idea of what he will need as information and processes in order to do things like that. Anyway.

The conclusions of your various hypothetical syllogisms do not follow from your premises. Having knowledge of how something works does not entail technical ability to manipulate the process. We know how hurricanes work, but we still can't do anything about it.

'closer' DNA doesn't mean a thing as said before.

btw DNA is an electromagnetic receiver and sender.

Correct; it traces geneology.

explain

My work I done here!