Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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

#115222 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>How about four years of medical school?
Let us know when you start.(shrug)
nemesis

Kansas City, MO

#115223 Jan 25, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I know you are out there. Way out there.
Im not the one praying and talking to a ghost. Futher out there.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115224 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>m
Materially supported? What a joke... Evolution is entirely irrelevant to experimental science and is founded solely on man's imagination.
In that case you should have no problem addressing it then:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115225 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.
What does atheism have to do with anything? Unless of course you happen to reject evolution because you think Goddidit with magic?
Adam and Steve

Kansas City, MO

#115226 Jan 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
What does atheism have to do with anything? Unless of course you happen to reject evolution because you think Goddidit with magic?
2 questions: 1)Are we alone in the universe? and 2)Is the God/Jesus story true or a fable?
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115227 Jan 25, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
In that case you should have no problem addressing it then:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
HTS - is a typical creationist

posting arguments that he has read on DI/AIG etc but not really understood

When asked to back up his assertions he just ignores it and carries on posting the same stuff

Bit tedious really, at least UC will follow it through to an extent
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115228 Jan 25, 2013
Adam and Steve wrote:
<quoted text>2 questions: 1)Are we alone in the universe? and 2)Is the God/Jesus story true or a fable?
1) probably not
2) can't be proved either way, but as there is no evidence to support it - can replace 'God/Jesus' with Flying Spaghetti Monster and ask the same question.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115229 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.
Thanks for admitting that you are an idiot.

Now if you would like to know how evolution is science and I would be more than happy to help an idiot even as foolish as you are.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115230 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What misconceptions and logical fallacies? You are obviously a total stranger to experimental science if you think evolution remotely qualifies as science.

I have a MS in Science and have one published research paper. I have taught science at the undergraduate level and have been a science junkie since about age 8. I bet I know a good deal more about the the scientific method, reading and critiquing research and the philosophy of science than you do.

From the content of your posts I expect most H.S. graduates know much more about science than you do (or at least should if they graduated).

One way or another

United States

#115231 Jan 25, 2013
Evolutionist scientists like congress, lie their asses off for grants and their paychecks.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115232 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>How about four years of medical school?

Sorry, but medicine is mostly an applied science. If you want to learn about how research is done you better go back and get a Ph.D. But even an MD SHOULD know how to read a research paper, and this you apparently don't.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115233 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>m
Materially supported? What a joke... Evolution is entirely irrelevant to experimental science and is founded solely on man's imagination.

I used that word because that makes it a fact. There is more material evidence for evolution than any other science.

There are also few areas of science that have as many independent lines of supporting evidence from as many different areas of scientific study as evolution.

Evolution is observable and has been observed.
Evolution is testable and has been tested.
Evolution is falsifiable but has never been falsified.
Evolution can and does make successful predictions.

That is pretty much the DEFINITION of science. You can get upset about it, but that means little. Facts are facts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115234 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.

Sorry, you have flung hollow assertions into the night.

BTW, I am not an atheist. I have my picture in my church directory and everything.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115235 Jan 25, 2013
Adam and Steve wrote:
<quoted text>2 questions: 1)Are we alone in the universe? and 2)Is the God/Jesus story true or a fable?

1. maybe
2. yes.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115236 Jan 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I see you've been logging on to that worthless atheist website talkorigins. Every one of those "29+ evidences" has been soundly debunked, so my advice to you is to stop blindly parroting whatever BS you read on the Internet. Please tell me how any form of life could survive a minimum of hundreds of years on a comet. You've ASSUMED that abiogenesis occurred, but have no science to back it up. That's RELIGION.
TalkOrigins is no more "atheistic" than a site that describes how a ball falls or what happens in a collision is atheistic. Actually what that site would be is a physic site. Nor is it any more "atheistic" than a site that describes equilibria and the pH of an acid. That site would be a chemistry site. So why pick on a site that describes how life evolved?
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115237 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Evolutionist scientists like congress, lie their asses off for grants and their paychecks.
Will ask again
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115238 Jan 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
TalkOrigins is no more "atheistic" than a site that describes how a ball falls or what happens in a collision is atheistic. Actually what that site would be is a physic site. Nor is it any more "atheistic" than a site that describes equilibria and the pH of an acid. That site would be a chemistry site. So why pick on a site that describes how life evolved?
Good question, though I suspect you know the answer - basically

Evolution takes LOTS of time

Those whom Interpret the genesis account literally believe the earth has only been here for 6000 years

Hence HAVE to reject evolution.

Simple really, wrong, but simple
Anonymous

Phnom Penh, Cambodia

#115239 Jan 25, 2013
just keep telling them it was all done in 7 days,

yeah ;)
www.clubvegas999.com
One way or another

United States

#115240 Jan 25, 2013
Without hard evidence, there is no science. Evolution offers no hard science.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115242 Jan 25, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Without hard evidence, there is no science. Evolution offers no hard science.
And the hard science your you pet psychology was ???

Or your bacteria are intelligent argument

Or your capitalism is the same as communism argument

Or your spin = gravity argument

Or your sulphur metabolizing = sulphar based argument

Don't worry - your absense of a response Is response enough - just keep posting your nonsense and refusing to defend it.

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) 50 min showmethemoney 171,718
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Paul Porter1 142,557
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 4 hr Paul Porter1 266
Science Suggests That A Quantum Creation Force ... (Jun '14) 4 hr Paul Porter1 33
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr DanFromSmithville 20,565
News Intelligent design 4 hr GTID62 2
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 10 hr Zog Has-fallen 15
More from around the web