Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#94429 Jun 15, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Examples have been provided - you dismiss them
But you haven't even got to the point where you can provide any examples of predictions / breakthroughs based on creation science - want to give it another go ?
Obviously just saying creation science is credited for all accomplishments is meaningless - we asked (again and again) for specific examples
Because you had nothing. You know what I'm talking about.

A. Naturalistic vertical evolution. Macroevolution. Transmutation of Species. The notion that a fish evolved over billions of years into a reptile and then into a bird and a mammal is pure fantasy with no evidence. This is fantasy.

B. Not adaptation. Not genetic variation. Not Microevolution. Not simple genetic variety. This is part of the creation. This is what we observe. But fish have always been fish. Birds have always been birds. Humans have always been humans. That is what we observe!

These (A. and B.) are two entirely different concepts. Stop equivocating!

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#94430 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Youre estimate is way, way off.
Then demonstrate it with an equation
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't simply take the current distance and divide the rate into it.
That's what he said!
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The rate of recession increases the closer the moon gets to the earth.
Again, that's what he said!
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
As you go back through time and the moon moves closer, the earth's rotation would increase
Why would the earth's rotation increase? What force or resultant will cause this to happen?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
and so the tides would increase.
4 Billion years ago, there WERE NO TIDES BECAUSE THERE WERE NO WATER.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to know calculus.
What a funny statement. Question, what do you know about mathematics?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is also the Roche limit.
And? What of it? What does the Roche limit have to do with anything you are talking about?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is simply no way to account for long ages of evolution because of simple Newtonian physics of the moon-earth system.
Once again. YOU KNOW NOTHING, NOTHING OF NEWTONIAN PHYSICS.

I asked you why the moon orbits us. YOU ARE UNABLE TO ANSWER THAT. That proves that you are a total noob at physics; You have NO background in it. You understand the topic to the level of maybe a 6th grader. So you are unfit to comment on 'simple Newtonian physics'
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The this places a maximum age on the moon and absolutely precludes any possibility of darwinian long age evolution.
No, it doesn't
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Debunked creationist crap

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#94431 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you had nothing. You know what I'm talking about.
A. Naturalistic vertical evolution. Macroevolution. Transmutation of Species. The notion that a fish evolved over billions of years into a reptile and then into a bird and a mammal is pure fantasy with no evidence. This is fantasy.
B. Not adaptation. Not genetic variation. Not Microevolution. Not simple genetic variety. This is part of the creation. This is what we observe. But fish have always been fish. Birds have always been birds. Humans have always been humans. That is what we observe!
These (A. and B.) are two entirely different concepts. Stop equivocating!
Transmutation of species?

Is a wolf and a dog seperate species? Yes, they are. Meaning that we can prove that evolution creates new species, IN ONLY THE PAST FEW THOUSAND YEARS!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94432 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you had nothing. You know what I'm talking about.
A. Naturalistic vertical evolution. Macroevolution. Transmutation of Species. The notion that a fish evolved over billions of years into a reptile and then into a bird and a mammal is pure fantasy with no evidence. This is fantasy.
B. Not adaptation. Not genetic variation. Not Microevolution. Not simple genetic variety. This is part of the creation. This is what we observe. But fish have always been fish. Birds have always been birds. Humans have always been humans. That is what we observe!
These (A. and B.) are two entirely different concepts. Stop equivocating!
You mean things popping into existence with no known or measurable force is not fantasy to you, but the gradual changes accumulating into a clear separation of species is fantasy to you?

Did your computer just materialize out of thin air? Were you born an adult? Did your food just appear onto your dinner plate?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#94433 Jun 15, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Transmutation of species?
Is a wolf and a dog seperate species? Yes, they are. Meaning that we can prove that evolution creates new species, IN ONLY THE PAST FEW THOUSAND YEARS!
No, they're not.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#94434 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ideology. An alternative to God. This was predicted by the Bible. I would expect to be in the small minority on this.
You are trying to prove the myths and legends of the Bible are real historical events.

'That's what the Bible says' falls far short of meeting the standard of evidence and in fact makes you look like an idíot

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#94435 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they're not.
Okay great.

So wolves EVOLVED into dogs.

Before our eyes!
Mugwump

UK

#94437 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you had nothing. You know what I'm talking about.
A. Naturalistic vertical evolution. Macroevolution. Transmutation of Species. The notion that a fish evolved over billions of years into a reptile and then into a bird and a mammal is pure fantasy with no evidence. This is fantasy.
B. Not adaptation. Not genetic variation. Not Microevolution. Not simple genetic variety. This is part of the creation. This is what we observe. But fish have always been fish. Birds have always been birds. Humans have always been humans. That is what we observe!
These (A. and B.) are two entirely different concepts. Stop equivocating!
Nope, the question was about predictions/discoveries based on YEC - why DO you refuse to answer this UC ?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#94438 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course , Creation science is credited for all accomplishments to date.
Weird, because I don't recall a single "creation scientist" appearing in any newspaper articles regarding scientific achievements, or winning any Nobel Prizes. Yet, you claim ALL accomplishments to date are credited to them. Fascinating. Perhaps you can just tell us ONE SPECIFIC PARTICULAR THING that was accomplished because of "creation science" that would have failed using legitimate conventional science. You know, like I keep asking you for, but you keep failing to provide. JUST ONE.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Now, where's your list?
Tell me one thing that darwinism has done for mankind except to stymie progress and waste time and torture and murder people? How about the 100 "vestigial" organs that we now know have important biological function? Huh? Oh, and how about the time you guys put a talented and educated Alaskan Inuit family in a cage on display that went on tour and also put Mr. Ota Benga in a cage as proof of evolution and darwinist entertainment. Sickening ideology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga
Imagine that. Our understanding of reality has improved as science has progressed and ignorance has diminished (except among those who claim science is just a conspiracy).

Just one.
Mugwump

UK

#94439 Jun 15, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Weird, because I don't recall a single "creation scientist" appearing in any newspaper articles regarding scientific achievements, or winning any Nobel Prizes. Yet, you claim ALL accomplishments to date are credited to them. Fascinating. Perhaps you can just tell us ONE SPECIFIC PARTICULAR THING that was accomplished because of "creation science" that would have failed using legitimate conventional science. You know, like I keep asking you for, but you keep failing to provide. JUST ONE.
<quoted text>
Imagine that. Our understanding of reality has improved as science has progressed and ignorance has diminished (except among those who claim science is just a conspiracy).
Just one.
Annoying isn't it - would think it would be more honest to just say there are no examples and move on - rather than dodging
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#94440 Jun 15, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Annoying isn't it - would think it would be more honest to just say there are no examples and move on - rather than dodging
Just name one little positive thing that darwinism has contributed. Just one little thing. I'll be waiting and asking again and again the same question. Why don't you just admit there isn't anything?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94441 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Just name one little positive thing that darwinism has contributed. Just one little thing. I'll be waiting and asking again and again the same question. Why don't you just admit there isn't anything?
Do you mean the theory of evolution?
Mugwump

UK

#94442 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Just name one little positive thing that darwinism has contributed. Just one little thing. I'll be waiting and asking again and again the same question. Why don't you just admit there isn't anything?
NOPE - you have been given many examples - you dismiss them - I can give you links to the posts tomorrow when I get to a pc.

So we have given examples - now IT'S YOUR TURN
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#94443 Jun 15, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
NOPE - you have been given many examples - you dismiss them - I can give you links to the posts tomorrow when I get to a pc.
So we have given examples - now IT'S YOUR TURN
I already gave you my answer. Now it's your turn:

Just name one little positive thing that darwinism has contributed. Just one little thing. I'll be waiting and asking again and again the same question. Why don't you just admit there isn't anything?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94444 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I already gave you my answer. Now it's your turn:
Just name one little positive thing that darwinism has contributed. Just one little thing. I'll be waiting and asking again and again the same question. Why don't you just admit there isn't anything?
Your answer was discarded outright due to the lack of evidence and specifics, you just made a claim, you provided no explanation of how it was so.

Also again, do you mean the theory of evolution or are you talking about the outdated book that Darwin wrote which is now just kept for posterity?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#94445 Jun 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean things popping into existence with no known or measurable force is not fantasy to you, but the gradual changes accumulating into a clear separation of species is fantasy to you?
Did your computer just materialize out of thin air? Were you born an adult? Did your food just appear onto your dinner plate?
That's what I could ask you. Creation science does not have a conflict with the law of cause and effect like darwinism does. Your belief in "nothing, plus nobody, equals everything, is illogical. Nobody has ever seen something happen for no reason. There is always a higher intelligence involved in the cause of the effect. You believe that the whole universe and everything in it came from nothing for no reason and that makes no sense.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#94446 Jun 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean the theory of evolution?
I refuse to accept that term on the grounds that it has become bastardized and equivocates regarding two separate and mutually exclusive concepts. It is inherently dishonest.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94447 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I could ask you. Creation science does not have a conflict with the law of cause and effect like darwinism does. Your belief in "nothing, plus nobody, equals everything, is illogical. Nobody has ever seen something happen for no reason. There is always a higher intelligence involved in the cause of the effect. You believe that the whole universe and everything in it came from nothing for no reason and that makes no sense.
Holy crap, you are a creationist snake oil salesman. No one is really that dishonest or stupid.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#94448 Jun 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy crap, you are a creationist snake oil salesman. No one is really that dishonest or stupid.
Don't like the truth I see.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#94449 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I could ask you. Creation science does not have a conflict with the law of cause and effect like darwinism does. Your belief in "nothing, plus nobody, equals everything, is illogical. Nobody has ever seen something happen for no reason. There is always a higher intelligence involved in the cause of the effect. You believe that the whole universe and everything in it came from nothing for no reason and that makes no sense.
That does seem to be the heart of the conflict.

You seem to be comfortable with the idea that "nothing, plus nobody equals god." That allows you to confuse the meaning of "reason" with "purpose."

Yes, there is a reason why things happen. But no, that does not mean that there is a purpose for things to happen. Gravity just IS.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 13 min Regolith Based Li... 40,608
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 15 min Eagle 12 16,096
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 20 min Regolith Based Li... 201,307
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 148
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr _Susan_ 151,418
LUCA and more REAL science 12 hr MIDutch 1
Dinosaurs and the Catholic Church 12 hr MIDutch 1
More from around the web