Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179274 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94412 Jun 15, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
About 4 billion years ago. Your point is?
Also, you seem unable to address my question.
Why is the moon receding? What causes it to recede?
There is a very simple, common scientific explanation for this. If you are indeed 'on top' of secular science, please supply the answer?
PS: The answer can be expressed in two words
10 billion, Polymath did the math on it. ;)

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#94413 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What fossil exactly? Vaccines have nothing to do with vertical evolution.
What utter nonsense. How many vaccines have you developed? To create a vaccine you need to be able to predict biological activity after being exposed to a chemical/biological agent. It requires our Theory of Evolution.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Medicines are completely uninfluenced by macroevolution.
Please tell me, what the difference is between micro/macro evolution. Where are the 'genetic limiters'? Why are there 'genetic limiters'? Where does micro stop and macro begin?

Your statements contain no sense, and is mouthwash for the ignorant.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#94414 Jun 15, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did the pendulum swing to the other side? Once, creationism was the dominant paradigm. Why did so many die-hard creationists end up accepting the theory of evolution and geology and chemistry and physics and every other field of scientific study contrary to how today's Biblical literalist "creation scientists" do?
Ideology. An alternative to God. This was predicted by the Bible. I would expect to be in the small minority on this.

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#94415 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course , Creation science is credited for all accomplishments to date.
Wrong again. You are making statements out of ignorance AGAIN. Creation Science is seen as a joke IN THE EYES OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, where's your list?
Biology
Geology
Anthropology
Paleontology
The Modern medical field
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me one thing that darwinism has done for mankind except to stymie progress and waste time and torture and murder people?
Nobody murders 'in the name of' darwinism. That's like murdering 'in the name' of fractions.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How about the 100 "vestigial" organs that we now know have important biological function? Huh?
Name them
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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
I don't know any Alaskans or Inuits

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text>
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
What about when your people killed the Jews in the name of Christ?

Got mit uns

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#94416 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.
Wow. So your bible predicted that people will say it's BS.

You are very easily convinced, aren't you?

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#94417 Jun 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
10 billion, Polymath did the math on it. ;)
Saw it now. But as he mentioned, the increments would be larger and decrease with time

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#94418 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even close! And you ignored the rotation and tidal effects. Hint: It is not a linear function.
Rotation and tidal effects???

What in the blue hell are you talking about?

4 Billion years there was no biological life on earth, at all.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#94419 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even close! And you ignored the rotation and tidal effects. Hint: It is not a linear function.
As I pointed out in the second paragraph. The first was an order of magnitude estimate. The actual separation rate probably decreases logarithmically given the nature of the gravitational field. Rotation is irrelevant to the overall effect and the whole of the separation is due to tidal effects. The estimate stands.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#94420 Jun 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You have entered the conspiracy nut category with your last statement. "Macro" and "micro" are creationist constructs, there is just evolution, the divide is an artificial and arbitrary one invented by creationists in an attempt to explain why things evolve in spire of them trying to claim they don't. In other words, it's a dodge to avoid the contradiction in their own assertions.
There are millions of species of viruses and bacteria, they are all different species, all unique. Therefore, even by your failed creationist idea, they are evolving into new species all the time, your stupid "macroevolution" concept. Due to how simple they are, the change more between generations and so their evolution is easy to witness in a lab.
Until you can get past the conspiracy nuttery and the idiotic creationists' attempt to make up terms, you will never learn what reality is.
It's clear to me by now that you don't know what you're talking about. You are the eptitome of vodoo dogmabot zombee.
Mugwump

UK

#94421 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course , Creation science is credited for all accomplishments to date.
Now, where's your list?
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

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94422 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's clear to me by now that you don't know what you're talking about. You are the eptitome of vodoo dogmabot zombee.
You have still posted no proof, all you do is call names of those who ask for it. Show proof, your scripture states you are suppose to prove it.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94423 Jun 15, 2012
Mr. UC, post where you see "macroevolution" in a scientific paper.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#94424 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's clear to me by now that you don't know what you're talking about. You are the eptitome of vodoo dogmabot zombee.
It's been clear for a long time that you don't know what you are talking about. You are the eptitome of vodoo dogmabot zombee.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#94425 Jun 15, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
As I pointed out in the second paragraph. The first was an order of magnitude estimate. The actual separation rate probably decreases logarithmically given the nature of the gravitational field. Rotation is irrelevant to the overall effect and the whole of the separation is due to tidal effects. The estimate stands.
Youre estimate is way, way off. You can't simply take the current distance and divide the rate into it. The rate of recession increases the closer the moon gets to the earth. As you go back through time and the moon moves closer, the earth's rotation would increase and so the tides would increase. You have to know calculus. There is also the Roche limit. There is simply no way to account for long ages of evolution because of simple Newtonian physics of the moon-earth system. The this places a maximum age on the moon and absolutely precludes any possibility of darwinian long age evolution.

Here, read these:

http://creation.com/the-moons-recession-and-a...

http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006...

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#94426 Jun 15, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's been clear for a long time that you don't know what you are talking about. You are the eptitome of vodoo dogmabot zombee.
You're also a phony calling yourself Polymath and don't even realize a calculation involving moon recession requires calculus.

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#94427 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're also a phony calling yourself Polymath and don't even realize a calculation involving moon recession requires calculus.
Do you know what calculus is??

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94428 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Youre estimate is way, way off. You can't simply take the current distance and divide the rate into it. The rate of recession increases the closer the moon gets to the earth. As you go back through time and the moon moves closer, the earth's rotation would increase and so the tides would increase. You have to know calculus. There is also the Roche limit. There is simply no way to account for long ages of evolution because of simple Newtonian physics of the moon-earth system. The this places a maximum age on the moon and absolutely precludes any possibility of darwinian long age evolution.
Here, read these:
http://creation.com/the-moons-recession-and-a...
http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006...
Polymath's calculations are not off, they are dead on. All of your sources are making up their own numbers and not using reality to make a failed point. However, the movement away is also, as Polymath pointed out, not constant, it has changed over time. But if it was constant, then it would make the Moon and Earth over 10 billion years old. We know that the Earth is only 4.something billion years old. At least the scientific date fits the math better than your fanciful sources.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, 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!

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min replaytime 186,861
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 31 min Critical Eye 56
News This year's first batch of anti-science educati... 1 hr Critical Eye 1
In the Beginning Did God Create Man or Did Man ... 1 hr Critical Eye 3
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Critical Eye 5,997
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Frank Merton 27,289
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 10 hr _Susan_ 14,382
More from around the web