Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178688 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115202 Jan 25, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I AM an intellectual elite. Shhh...
Compared to fundies, lemmings are intellectual elites.(shrug)

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#115203 Jan 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Compared to fundies, lemmings are intellectual elites.(shrug)
AND grasshoppers!Don't forget the grasshoppers!
One way or another

United States

#115204 Jan 25, 2013
The Evo morons here and their childish clique, make claims that everything they talk about, proves evolution or everything that supports evolution, but when they are challenged, they resort to the childish cliques only line and that is, the clique using their childish antics, to show everyone, the clique cares nothing about science, but rather their clique. If you use intelligent reasoning, they will use childish antics and not care what anyone thinks or says.

Deceit is their first and last line of defense.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115205 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You acknowledge that a feathered creature with three ear ossicles would convince you of the fallacy of evolution... yet you accept elements of chimerism such as monotremes only because they exist.
Now you're bringing up the failed junk DNA paradigm... which has been soundly debunked. And if you think the fossil record supports evolution, why are transitional fossils missing by the millions?
You say evolution has nothing to do with atheism? What kind of a gullible stooge would believe such nonsense? The philosophical consequences of a belief in evolution can be encapsulated in the following statement by William B Provine, Ph.D., a renowned historian of science and professor at Cornell University:
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."*
*(Provine W.B., "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life." Abstract of Prof. William B. Provine's 1998 "Darwin Day address, "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville TN, 1998).

Your posts are filled with scientific mythconceptions and logical fallacies. You are very emotional and your posts are rife with emotionalism. But here logic and education are more persuasive. Please try to learn something of science before trying to debunk it.

Thanks.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115206 Jan 25, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
AND grasshoppers!Don't forget the grasshoppers!
Sorry, and the grasshoppers. Mustn't forget the grasshoppers!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115207 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>intelligent creation is natural. It operates through laws that science doesn't understand. You can't explain through science how time + matter = life. You have faith... that is religion.

This is faith. Science operates on the level of physical evidence, not faith. You don't seem to understand how real science is conducted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115208 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No... You've ASSUMED that a naturalistic explanation exists. There is NO SCIENCE behind any theory of abiogenesis.

This is incorrect.

Try looking as Harvard Universities site. They have a partial list of some of the scientific research on abiogenesis.

http://origins.harvard.edu/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115209 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The Evo morons here and their childish clique, make claims that everything they talk about, proves evolution or everything that supports evolution, but when they are challenged, they resort to the childish cliques only line and that is, the clique using their childish antics, to show everyone, the clique cares nothing about science, but rather their clique. If you use intelligent reasoning, they will use childish antics and not care what anyone thinks or says.
Actually Jimbo we're still waiting for that challenge. I know you're upset just because HTS has had every single one of his baseless claims eviscerated, but that's not our problem.
One way or another wrote:
Deceit is their first and last line of defense.
Jim, why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?

Remember that at any time you can jump in and help your creationist fellows. As it is though you tend to alienate yourself from them too. Just like you do with Urban Bozo-boy. Just think how incredible it would be if you all joined forces - the amazing team of creation "scientists"! Falsifying evolution today, cover of time magazine tomorrow!!!

:-D
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115210 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The Evo morons here and their childish clique, make claims that everything they talk about, proves evolution or everything that supports evolution, but when they are challenged, they resort to the childish cliques only line and that is, the clique using their childish antics, to show everyone, the clique cares nothing about science, but rather their clique. If you use intelligent reasoning, they will use childish antics and not care what anyone thinks or says.
Deceit is their first and last line of defense.
Jim, what exactly is the purpose of your posts?

It obviously isn't to further the scientific knowledge of mankind - or you would submit your 'new science' to the relevant publications.

It obviously isn't to engage in any discourse as you never respond to any questions about your 'new science'

It obviously isn't to endear yourself - as your homophobic and anti-semetic rants have burned that bridge.

You could learn something (I know I have) from reading and engaging with posters (even if you disagree with them)- but you don't.

So what exactly are you trying to achieve?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115211 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your idiotic charactures of God only reveal your base ignorance. No one is suggesting that "God" = "magic". And your suggestiion that science is "closing the gap" on the "god of the gaps" argument is equally ridiculous. I'll give you the atheist definition of "supernatural": Anything that excludes intelligent design... any proposal, regardless of how scientifically illogical, will be blindly accepted as long as it does not invoke an external source of intelligence. You can't explain through science how anyting evolved. All you can do is fabricate just-so stories. That's not science.

This is just nonsense. You have an opinion and are on the job. If you don't understand the science then you just need to read about it. Not make it up or copy unsound notions from creationist sites.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115212 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>"EVOLUTIONDIDIT is your only explanation for abiogenesis, despite the fact that every proposal is scientifically illogical. You are only committed to your predetermined religion of atheism. You're pretending to use science to justify your worldview.

Where do you get this nonsense? It is absolutely nutty.

You have never taken a college level science class in your life, have you?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115213 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is not remotely "science". It is a metaphysical paradigm founded on an a priori rejection of intelligent design. Nothing in the world of experimental biology has any relevancy to evolution whatsoever.

Again, this is a combination of silliness and being steeped in a belief system that you feel you must defend.

You are completely unaware of what is known in science and how the scientific method works. You are told what to believe and you believe it.

But there is nothing in our religion that requires you to do this. Like Billy Graham, the Pope and many others I am perfectly happy with science and see no conflict between what is know to science and my religious beliefs.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115214 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> "science" is not "evolution".

True, but evolution is science.

Actually, the theory of evolution is the most materially supported theory in the entire history of science. That is why it has stood up so well to nearly 160 years of scientific and lay scrutiny.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115215 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
None of your assumed laws that created and diversified life have been proven to exist.
Your definition of "natural law" is any speculation made by intellectuals that excludes intelligent design. Who are you to assume that God doesn't exist and doesn't comply with natural law?

Intelligent design is not science. ID has no supporting evidence. ID has no theory. ID has proposed no working hypothesis. ID has no support in the scientific community. ID makes no coherent and testable predictions. ID is not observable.

Evolution, however, is all of those things.
HTS

Williston, ND

#115216 Jan 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your posts are filled with scientific mythconceptions and logical fallacies. You are very emotional and your posts are rife with emotionalism. But here logic and education are more persuasive. Please try to learn something of science before trying to debunk it.
Thanks.
What misconceptions and logical fallacies? You are obviously a total stranger to experimental science if you think evolution remotely qualifies as science.
HTS

Williston, ND

#115217 Jan 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get this nonsense? It is absolutely nutty.
You have never taken a college level science class in your life, have you?
How about four years of medical school?
HTS

Williston, ND

#115218 Jan 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
True, but evolution is science.
Actually, the theory of evolution is the most materially supported theory in the entire history of science. That is why it has stood up so well to nearly 160 years of scientific and lay scrutiny.
m
Materially supported? What a joke... Evolution is entirely irrelevant to experimental science and is founded solely on man's imagination.
HTS

Williston, ND

#115219 Jan 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is just nonsense. You have an opinion and are on the job. If you don't understand the science then you just need to read about it. Not make it up or copy unsound notions from creationist sites.
Dogen... Your insecurity is transparent. I have obviously assaulted your atheistic religion, and I understand your pathetic attempts to justify your amoral worldview with science.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#115220 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>How about four years of medical school?
Couldn't pass the graduation exams huh? Not surprising to me. Perhaps it was because you were home schooled and self taught??
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115221 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Dogen... Your insecurity is transparent. I have obviously assaulted your atheistic religion, and I understand your pathetic attempts to justify your amoral worldview with science.
Still dodging my question, it's obvious you can't defend your argument about how evolution is dependent on abiogenisis so let's move on to your argument about how evolution is a atheistic construct.

Hey - waddya know - i can use the same post from before (killing two birds with one piece of logic as it were)- how cool is that ?

Dodge away.
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Rubbish - but will give you a chance to back up your claim, consider the following 2 scenarios
A) God created the first life form (say a self replicating molecule), then used the process of evolution to diversify over the next 3-4 billion years
B) a particular set of conditions (as yet unknown) allowed a molecule to self-replicated the the process of evolution diversified life over the next 3-4 billion years.
Question : how would you refute the Scenerio B (with respect to evolution) without refuting Scenerio A)
Forget HOW life started, concentrate on the diversification part.
If you can't - your claim about how 'Darwinism' is wrong without abiogenisis is baseless.
Rational answers will be discussed.
BS will be ridiculed
Ready , set , go !

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
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 9 min Chimney1 85
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 17 min Chimney1 100
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 20 min Chimney1 73
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 27 min Chimney1 143,899
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr DanFromSmithville 173,361
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 55
Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically prove... 10 hr Chimney1 134
More from around the web