Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180394 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116602 Feb 10, 2013
alan wrote:
<quoted text>Chips? That just one way of human tracking/study group infology. Their are more humans studying human behavior that human behavior can provide. They cant wait to control human thoughts and modify human behavior.....first they need the drug, they are working around the clock to control humans, only on Thursdays to find cures.
I just want to know which one is chipping us.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116603 Feb 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
"No" only takes two keystrokes.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116604 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
While I cannot claim it always, what I wrote that you responded to was not disrespectful.
So lets just take your whole "you just have a different world view" approach.
What are the fundamentals of these different world views? You have no valid physical evidence in support of your beliefs. Therefore the only honest claim you can make would be, as per Kurt Wise
"...if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."
http://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-si...
Yet that is not what you do. Instead, you present a weak parody of science in order to try and pretend that what you believe is legitimate in rational empirical terms, probably for several reasons:
1. Even you cannot quite swallow Kurt Wise's position stated so bluntly, and seek the legitimacy of science.
2. You know that the only way you are going to smuggle scriptural dogma back into the schools is to appear to play by the rules of science.
3. You hope to persuade a less sophisticated audience that this is a legitimate debate between two scientific viewpoints, rather than a fight between science itself and religious dogmatism.
Now, you and Russell can keep presenting cobbled together apologetics dressed up in the format of scientific papers if you like, but you still do not have a single solid YEC leg to stand on. I have yet to see one such paper that even came close to presenting a solid argument with good evidence. And yes, I will read such papers VERY critically, as anybody should read ANY scientific paper.

The logic is as follows.
1. I make a clearly emotional decision as a child.
2. I reject science as a consequence of that emotional decision.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116605 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey moron, why don't you explain your first sentence, in the post that you use the words,-- cosmological constant, because from what I read, its pure bull shit, just like the rest of that post, but hey, let's be fair and give you the chance to prove what you claim.
I will detail after you idiot boy. Do you really think you can use such utter BS to fool others?
Your "spin = gravity" "hypothesis" fails about 20% of the time, according to you. How many other hypotheses fail about 20% of the time and are still accepted as valid?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116606 Feb 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Creationists are routinely discriminated against despite their science being "just like real scientists" because they are real scientists who work in scientific establishments and publish their work like scientists do
Wrong. They are discriminated against because their "science" is NOT just like real science. The methodologies and analyses do not withstand peer review, which is why they had to create their own publications to get their hogwash to see ink.

What do you think the peer-review process is? What percentage of submitted articles do you think EVER get published in the legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals? What percentage get published in the creationist journals?
Russell wrote:
http://creation.com/discrimina tion-against-creation-scientis ts
And also see regarding Raymond Damadian, inventor of MRI:
http://creation.com/the-not-so-nobel-decision
It was like
And in case you rush off to Wiki or trash-origins or Readers Digest and come back in a frenzy saying, Raymond Damadian did not invent MRI.....sigh...please see:
http://creation.com/dr-damadians-vital-contri...
An article by a friend about peer review:
http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-p...
What do YOU think peer-review is? How do you think it operates?
Russell wrote:
Who debunked my comets post? Who?
I must have missed it....
Easily done when one has a rich full life is is not cemented to this Forum
Does water have magical properties?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116607 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, aww, poor chimney, too stupid to debate what's written at the time and answer most anything completely, but he sure can use his childish innuendo and deceit.
Try this idiot, if red shift is real, is our galaxy moving in the same direction as all other galaxies?

Ah, so there IS such a thing as a stupid question.

One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we see the direction and speed of all other galaxies in the universe?

Not yet.

One way or another wrote:
<quoted text> One last question, is andromeda the only galaxy moving in the opposite direction, so as to collide with our galaxy, according to science?

No.

One way or another wrote:
<quoted text> You choose to be an idiot, just like so many others in your childish clique, making yourselves look like the idiots you choose to be. It's no wonder that not one of you idiots have had an original thought in all the years y'all have been here.

You need to look in a mirror when you say the above.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116608 Feb 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, you really shouldn't be so proud of yourself and so disrespectful of people like me who believe in God. Because after all we are both just people. And we both have our beliefs.
I happen to believe in the creator whereas you believe in the creation, or nature if you will. But besides our beliefs there is science, and that is what both of share an interest in .
Your baseline is Nature/Old Earth and mine is God. Our beliefs are mutually exclusive of science. Yes, I belief the Bible is the inspired word of God. And you believe there is no God and no intelligence involved in Nature (or maybe there is a "god" but he was not actively involved - who knows which brand you hold- but for you the "billions of years" thing is non-negotiable).
We both have directly observable evidence that supports and reinforces our particular beliefs and we both find gaps that don't fit so we must explain with unobservable theories. Point is, we are both doing the same thing! Neither one of us is anywhere near discovering all the true answers that lay ahead on this journey we call life. We just happen to choose different paths to the same destination. That's OK. It makes life interesting. We certainly aren't robots programmed to all think alike thankfully.
Sure, yours seems more popular at the momement but try not be so proud and disrespectful just because someone doesn't share your particular beliefs. When you act as though your beliefs about, say the "billions of years" thing are 100% absolute while mocking me for my beliefs about the Bible, that is hypocritical and a double standard. And in insulting me is surely not going to somehow shame me into your way of thinking!
Difference being, you approach all evidence by first asking, "how can this possibly agree with my holy book?" Meanwhile, the scientific community approaches it by first asking, "what could this mean, and how can I demonstrate that with evidence?" The two are entirely different methodologies. One has provided us with every technological advance known to man, while the other has provided us with Hamas, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Eat da poo poo, killing homosexuals, and trying to destroy the Constitution of the United States. Which one sounds more like science to you?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116609 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
If the Big Bang were true, every single galaxy would be moving away from a central point, so why is andromeda moving in the opposite direction? Did that galaxy decide to turn around?
You morons are just too funny.

Our local group are close enough together to be bound by gravity. Other galactic groups show the same properties.

It is not complicated. It is simple science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116610 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Science really does treat everyone as if they, we, are all morons as you Evo nuts choose to be.
If the Big Bang is true, did all the galaxies explode from one central point and if not, how does science claim all the galaxies left that central point?
Only people that choose to be idiots, believe without question.
former CIA Director, William Casey,“We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

The Origins of the Universe for Dummies, Stephen Pincock, Mark Frary,
ISBN: 978-0-470-51606-5

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116611 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor little chimney, can't answer the simplest things.
Funny, Russell and UC don't dispute what I write, but they sure as hell dispute your stupidity. Lol, stay stupid and deceitful, it suits you.
I'd love for Russell and UC or anyone with a brain to dispute what I write. Can you tell them for me? Lol

Actually Russell ignores you because he has recognized that you are a moron. UC disputes you and thinks you are a clown. You offer nothing worthwhile for them to respond to.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116612 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So you and science can't answer the simple questions I ask?
Did all the galaxies blow out as the Big Bang originally claimed?
Come on chimney, your deceit can't protect you for long.

You don't understand. You need some knowledge to understand more knowledge.

If you don't understand (as you usually don't) you claim deceit. But this claim of deceit is actually deceit on your own part and you are seeing your own projection.

I know, you don't understand this therefore it is deceit and lies....

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116613 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Did the galaxies get pushed out of the womb like babies perhaps? Come on chimney, answer these simple questions. Surely such great men of science that claim to be right every time can answer questions for us poorly educated people, right? Lol

No
yes.
Not always. Poorly educated, perhaps. Completely un/miseducated. Not really.
One way or another

United States

#116614 Feb 10, 2013
phaedrus wrote:
<quoted text>
There weren't any galaxies at the time of the Big Bang. Your question makes you look ridiculous because you're clearly trying to argue against a strawman version of the theory.
Then tell us, what did the Big Bang put out, plain ole dirt?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#116615 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Enough bleating.
Show us ONE creationist paper that you think stacks up to scrutiny and falsifies either evolution or old earth geology or astronomy.
Chimney, there are many *secular* papers that falsify macroevolution. I have shown them to you. You always figure out a way to descredit them (your own side even!). My point is you have a belief system which forms a baseline for your interpretation of the evidence. So do I, which is no different.
One way or another

United States

#116616 Feb 10, 2013
phaedrus wrote:
<quoted text>
There weren't any galaxies at the time of the Big Bang. Your question makes you look ridiculous because you're clearly trying to argue against a strawman version of the theory.
So your playing Phaedra now eh chimney? Do you need someone to hold your hand chimney?

Slow down chimdra, I'll answer each question and let's see if you can.
One way or another

United States

#116617 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, your lack of understanding of the big bang is funny.
Tell us chimney, why were you too afraid to answer the questions I put forward already?

I'll repeat them so you can ignore what you can't answer again, as well.
One way or another

United States

#116618 Feb 10, 2013
phaedrus wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read further down on the page you took that definition from ( http://universalium.academic.ru/97635/cosmolo... ) you'll see the following:
"Recent developments suggest that in the early universe there may well have been a cosmological constant with a nonzero value."
This is entirely in line with chimney's description. You might also want to refer to http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.h... before showing yourself up again.
It says and I quote"there may well have been a cosmological constant with a nonzero value."

Do tell moron, what exactly does that mean---? Does it mean that nothing was moving?
phaedrus

Leicester, UK

#116619 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Then tell us, what did the Big Bang put out, plain ole dirt?
As I understand it, the Big Bang was the origin of space and energy. Dirt didn't appear until well after galaxies did.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116620 Feb 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, there are many *secular* papers that falsify macroevolution. I have shown them to you. You always figure out a way to descredit them (your own side even!). My point is you have a belief system which forms a baseline for your interpretation of the evidence. So do I, which is no different.

Sorry, but this is not even possible.

Evolution is an observable (and observed) fact. You can no more falsify evolution than you can falsify electricity.

Now, you COULD falsify the Theory of Evolution (as opposed to the fact) but you have no way to do that.

Our "belief" system is the same one we have for gravity. Every time we drop something it falls down. We don't expect that to ever fail. But if it did we WOULD have to come up with an explanation for it.

So, all you have to do is show that things have all stopped evolving. That would not prove they did not evolve in the past because we know that they have.

So again, you don't understand how science works and you assume that it cannot be any better than your untrained mind.
phaedrus

Leicester, UK

#116621 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So your playing Phaedra now eh chimney? Do you need someone to hold your hand chimney?
Slow down chimdra, I'll answer each question and let's see if you can.
Nope, guess again.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 12 min Regolith Based Li... 28,321
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min Dogen 61,382
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 32 min Horn Dog 220,673
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Subduction Zone 160,311
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 12 hr Dogen 2,687
Curious dilemma about DNA 19 hr Subduction Zone 2
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Mar 23 Regolith Based Li... 99
More from around the web