Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 20 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 Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111799 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm surprised you didn't know this or perhaps you are pretending that you don't. One of the greatest discoveries of the 20th Century - General Relativity - was demonstrated using a solar eclipse. The ratio of the Sun's distance to size of Moon would be ideal during the last 10,000 years but becomes a problem only in much longer ages such as evolution requires. This "coincidence" of the Moon appearing the same size as the Sun and eclipses is just one of numerous "coincidences" that make it "appear" that the universe was fine-tuned for us. Not to mention that the solar system is placed on the outside of a spiral arm perfectly position for observation of the universe which we "appear" to be in the center of.

Sometimes I am pretty sure you are just playing stupid.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111800 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Different sized human brains is not it. Different sized ape brains is not it. Even today, humans can range from under 4 feet to over 7 feet. We only know there were fossils of skulls that were either human or ape. And besides, we were talking about mutations, remember?
Just .... whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111801 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Talkorigins has no authority. It is not peer reviewed and is highly biased and single purposed. It is just a collection of evolutionist rants to try and counter the numerous creationist claims.
You don't check their sources, that's all you just said in this post.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111803 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Its bias one sided agenda pushing bullshit...

Yes, but what about evolutionist sites?
LowellGuy

Brooklyn, NY

#111804 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok... What false statements did he make?
Where to begin. Ever hear when an evolutionary biologist called in to Hovind's show? Hundreds of lies by Hovind.
LowellGuy

Brooklyn, NY

#111805 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Talkorigins has no authority. It is not peer reviewed and is highly biased and single purposed. It is just a collection of evolutionist rants to try and counter the numerous creationist claims.
But "creation science journals" are objective and unbiased. Retard. That you think PNAS and NEJM are on par with the Bible-based reality-denying rags you read shows how detached from reality you are..

Found a single technological innovation, invention, or medical treatment to come from "creation science" yet? You've had plenty of time.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#111806 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
I must have because it certainly wasn't in the info about his experiment ...
Too lazy to read all the articles?

Here's two where it is discussed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.h...

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/a...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#111807 Dec 10, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Its bias one sided agenda pushing bullshit...
Yes and I wish you folks would knock it off.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#111808 Dec 10, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
But "creation science journals" are objective and unbiased. Retard. That you think PNAS and NEJM are on par with the Bible-based reality-denying rags you read shows how detached from reality you are..
Found a single technological innovation, invention, or medical treatment to come from "creation science" yet? You've had plenty of time.
I could say the same about you.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#111809 Dec 10, 2012
One hundred billion galaxies containing 100 billion stars each. Thirteen point four billion years. That would mean that about 20,000 new stars would have to form each second for 13.4 billion years. And yet, we have yet to see the first documented new star form. There is not even one unequivocal, clear-cut, indisputable case of a new star. No before and after picture and any portion of the entire universe. (Plus the fact that the laws of physics makes it impossible to happen anyway.) It is true, you are without excuse.
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

#111810 Dec 10, 2012
Again, all I'm hearing is that Talkorigins doesn't hold creationism in high regard. Nobody's actually said it's wrong, or pointed out any flaws in the arguments. It's like everybody's trying to get around refuting the actual argument by attempting to discredit the source, except very very badly.
Portal

United States

#111811 Dec 10, 2012
Psychology wrote:
If I'm a planet and my orbit gets closer to the sun, is my gravity going to change? Why yes jimmy, it's going to get stronger. Thank you.
Have you got a pickle, why no, I have a pickle.
Is a straight line straight? No, if you look with a microscope, you will see deviations.
Watch for the spelling cop, he has nothing else.
I scared off C1....I mentioned.....ETs.....scary stuff! Thats why most humans bow and bury their heads in religious crap....not one piece of evidence that anyone walked on water! To many galaxies to count.....theres your sign.....use your gray to make it matter!
Portal

United States

#111812 Dec 10, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes! Peer reviewed, internationally accepted bullshit cross checked with multiple line of bullshit evidence and decades of falsified experiments, designed by the 150 year old world wide conspiracy of scientists working in league with Satan to discredit Jesus. You will find these Satanists everywhere, in their white coats or with their little palaeontology pick-axes and ugly sandals, scouring the earth for bullshit, falsifying radiometric dating results, deliberately miscounting molecular clocks, misreporting on the cosmic background radiation, pretending that the continents are moving, hiding all the fossils of flowing plants from the deeper strata, pretending there is a geologic column, inventing intermediate forms and smuggling them into dig sites to be "discovered".
When I discovered the true depth and breadth of the bullshit conspiracy propounded by science, I swear it was beyond belief!
You WILL respond......is that clear C1? Blue Book, SETI any ideas......why no contact, just sightings? Let me enlighten you.........The controllers are in control........Humans are ease to control because their senses and subconscious are limited....yes C1, you are included..........later.Compre hention is the most limited human function!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#111813 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
One hundred billion galaxies containing 100 billion stars each. Thirteen point four billion years. That would mean that about 20,000 new stars would have to form each second for 13.4 billion years. And yet, we have yet to see the first documented new star form. There is not even one unequivocal, clear-cut, indisputable case of a new star. No before and after picture and any portion of the entire universe.(Plus the fact that the laws of physics makes it impossible to happen anyway.) It is true, you are without excuse.
Geez, I'm really sorry, Urb. We'll get that time-lapse camera on Hubble as soon as possible. Come back in a few million years and we can all watch it.

You really have no concept of cosmological time scales whatsoever, do you?

Putz.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#111814 Dec 10, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
Again, all I'm hearing is that Talkorigins doesn't hold creationism in high regard. Nobody's actually said it's wrong, or pointed out any flaws in the arguments. It's like everybody's trying to get around refuting the actual argument by attempting to discredit the source, except very very badly.
You are kidding, right? How long have you been here?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#111815 Dec 10, 2012
Portal wrote:
<quoted text>I scared off C1....I mentioned.....ETs.....scary stuff! Thats why most humans bow and bury their heads in religious crap....not one piece of evidence that anyone walked on water! To many galaxies to count.....theres your sign.....use your gray to make it matter!
Well, it is 5AM in Abudabi.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#111816 Dec 10, 2012
Portal wrote:
<quoted text>You WILL respond......is that clear C1? Blue Book, SETI any ideas......why no contact, just sightings? Let me enlighten you.........The controllers are in control........Humans are ease to control because their senses and subconscious are limited....yes C1, you are included..........later.Compre hention is the most limited human function!
Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#111817 Dec 10, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Geez, I'm really sorry, Urb. We'll get that time-lapse camera on Hubble as soon as possible. Come back in a few million years and we can all watch it.
You really have no concept of cosmological time scales whatsoever, do you?
Putz.
It already has one you moron. What part of the time scale don't I understand? Will for once say something at least remotely comprehensible? Are you capable of expressing a complete thought?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#111818 Dec 10, 2012
Mike, do you think you see the entire cosmos as a snapshot in time or are you looking back in time the further you look? Just curious.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111819 Dec 10, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
One hundred billion galaxies containing 100 billion stars each. Thirteen point four billion years. That would mean that about 20,000 new stars would have to form each second for 13.4 billion years. And yet, we have yet to see the first documented new star form. There is not even one unequivocal, clear-cut, indisputable case of a new star. No before and after picture and any portion of the entire universe.(Plus the fact that the laws of physics makes it impossible to happen anyway.) It is true, you are without excuse.

Actually we have seen stars both go on and go off.

Maybe you mean in our own galaxy as that would still be true. The same with supernova, at least for the last 400 years.

We also have many pictures of stars being formed.

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 Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 13 min Dogen 1,662
No Place For ID? 19 min Denisova 71
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 31 min dirtclod 18,846
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 39 min ACTUALLY 161,736
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 9 hr Paul Porter1 13,692
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 10 hr Zog Has-fallen 3
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of Sat Chimney1 14
More from around the web