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.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#116580 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course science changes. But moves closer to the goal as it does.
Newton was close, Einstein was closer.
Darwin was close, neo-Darwinism is closer, and there may be future elements that further modify the theory.
They are all light-years ahead of your book of mythology, with its dubious virtue of being unchanging (though tell that to a Muslim or a Mormon).
Is it out of Africa or out of Europe? A question of detail that will be settled when there is enough data. So what? The question is as fundamental to evolution as asking whether Jesus was really born in 4BC or 6BC would be fundamental to Christianity. Does it affect the underlying principles? No.
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!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116581 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
http://creation.com/discrimination-against-cr...
Enough bleating.

Show us ONE creationist paper that you think stacks up to scrutiny and falsifies either evolution or old earth geology or astronomy.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116582 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!
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.
One way or another

United States

#116583 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not one person could be bothered arguing to your ignorance regarding red shift and blue shift facts. Your fantasies are so far off the mark that its a waste of time, as I have come to learn whether its global warming, the height of Eskimos, the fundamentals of gravity, red shift, the speed of light, or of course evolution.
All of these things have the following in common: you argue against the prevailing understanding from a position of extreme ignorance, and you do not even know the facts and theories you think you are arguing against.
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?

Can we see the direction and speed of all other galaxies in the universe?

One last question, is andromeda the only galaxy moving in the opposite direction, so as to collide with our galaxy, according to science?

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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116585 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?
Can we see the direction and speed of all other galaxies in the universe?
One last question, is andromeda the only galaxy moving in the opposite direction, so as to collide with our galaxy, according to science?
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.
I debate with UC and lately Russell. You have nothing worthwhile to say.

The Hubble Expansion and red shift does not apply to the galaxies in our local cluster, as has been explained to you with the reasons. Now run along.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116586 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.
No, your lack of understanding of the big bang is funny.
One way or another

United States

#116587 Feb 10, 2013
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.”
One way or another

United States

#116588 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I debate with UC and lately Russell. You have nothing worthwhile to say.
The Hubble Expansion and red shift does not apply to the galaxies in our local cluster, as has been explained to you with the reasons. Now run along.
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

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116589 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.”
Well its like this Jimbo.

Quantum fluctuations in the original inflation field produced minor differences in density in the initial formless energy field, and these were magnified in the inflationary event and the gravitational effect that continued afterwards, with the tiny differences being magnified as more dense areas pulled in less dense areas, coming to form concentrations of galactic clusters.

Where these clusters have galaxies close enough together, the gravitational attractive force is great enough to overcome the overall cosmological expansion which is being driven by the cosmological constant, an effect first recognised by Einstein and arising form his general relativity equations, but which he himself found hard to accept as he preferred a static universe to an expanding one. Later he accepted the evidence.

Therefore galaxies now close enough together are not being driven apart from each other, but are still as a cluster being driven apart from other galactic clusters on a larger scale.

Now I am sure you are no wiser than when I started, will resort to weak insults and mindless objections, and this is why its not worth discussing anything with you.
One way or another

United States

#116590 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well its like this Jimbo.
Quantum fluctuations in the original inflation field produced minor differences in density in the initial formless energy field, and these were magnified in the inflationary event and the gravitational effect that continued afterwards, with the tiny differences being magnified as more dense areas pulled in less dense areas, coming to form concentrations of galactic clusters.
Where these clusters have galaxies close enough together, the gravitational attractive force is great enough to overcome the overall cosmological expansion which is being driven by the cosmological constant, an effect first recognised by Einstein and arising form his general relativity equations, but which he himself found hard to accept as he preferred a static universe to an expanding one. Later he accepted the evidence.
Therefore galaxies now close enough together are not being driven apart from each other, but are still as a cluster being driven apart from other galactic clusters on a larger scale.
Now I am sure you are no wiser than when I started, will resort to weak insults and mindless objections, and this is why its not worth discussing anything with you.
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.
One way or another

United States

#116591 Feb 10, 2013
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
One way or another

United States

#116592 Feb 10, 2013
Lmao, here's your cosmological constant. Hahahahahahahaha

cosmological constant
noun Astronomy
1. a term introduced by Einstein into his field equations of general relativity to permit a stationary, nonexpanding universe: it has since been abandoned in most models of the universe.

Do you really get away with such BS you moron?

If amyone with a brain reads your last post with the words cosmological constant in it and applies it as you claim, against what Einstein claims, they will see just what an idiot you really are.

A static universe doesn't attract or repel you moron.
One way or another

United States

#116593 Feb 10, 2013
You're a deceitful piece of shit chimney.
One way or another

United States

#116594 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well its like this Jimbo.
Quantum fluctuations in the original inflation field produced minor differences in density in the initial formless energy field, and these were magnified in the inflationary event and the gravitational effect that continued afterwards, with the tiny differences being magnified as more dense areas pulled in less dense areas, coming to form concentrations of galactic clusters.
Where these clusters have galaxies close enough together, the gravitational attractive force is great enough to overcome the overall cosmological expansion which is being driven by the cosmological constant, an effect first recognised by Einstein and arising form his general relativity equations, but which he himself found hard to accept as he preferred a static universe to an expanding one. Later he accepted the evidence.
Therefore galaxies now close enough together are not being driven apart from each other, but are still as a cluster being driven apart from other galactic clusters on a larger scale.
Now I am sure you are no wiser than when I started, will resort to weak insults and mindless objections, and this is why its not worth discussing anything with you.
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?
phaedrus

Leicester, UK

#116595 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?
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.
phaedrus

Leicester, UK

#116596 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Lmao, here's your cosmological constant. Hahahahahahahaha
cosmological constant
noun Astronomy
1. a term introduced by Einstein into his field equations of general relativity to permit a stationary, nonexpanding universe: it has since been abandoned in most models of the universe.
Do you really get away with such BS you moron?
If amyone with a brain reads your last post with the words cosmological constant in it and applies it as you claim, against what Einstein claims, they will see just what an idiot you really are.
A static universe doesn't attract or repel you moron.
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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116597 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Lmao, here's your cosmological constant. Hahahahahahahaha
cosmological constant
noun Astronomy
1. a term introduced by Einstein into his field equations of general relativity to permit a stationary, nonexpanding universe: it has since been abandoned in most models of the universe.
Do you really get away with such BS you moron?
If amyone with a brain reads your last post with the words cosmological constant in it and applies it as you claim, against what Einstein claims, they will see just what an idiot you really are.
A static universe doesn't attract or repel you moron.
Dear Moron

1. Einstein developed the cosmological constant as part of the general relativity equations, as he assumed a static universe and needed a repulsion constant to counteract gravity.

2.With the discovery of an expanding universe as per Hubble, Einstein abandoned his constant as no longer necessary in an expanding universe, and called it a mistake.

3. Newer understanding of the way the universe is expanding, with its expansion initially slowing up to about 5 billion years ago due to gravity but since then with the expansion accelerating, has resuscitated Einstein's cosmological constant. It also fits inflation theory for the early universal expansion burst.

So its alive and well, regardless of which old sources you quote.

Of course, my prediction that any attempt to answer you reasonably would be met with the usual stupidity and baseless accusations on your part, and it is proven once again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116598 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.
Believe me, a straw man would be an improvement on Jimbo's understanding of ANYTHING.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116599 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.
Your problem is you don't know enough to even ask the right questions.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116600 Feb 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Till someone can answer for the fact that evolution is a fact (observable, testable, replicable, parsimonious, with multiple lines of evidence form multiple different fields we are still waiting for the creations to suit up while we score millions of points.
anyone got a good creationist site? AIG and Creation.com both fail in spades. Any better ones out there?
http://www.biblegateway.com/

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 min Chimney1 143,907
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 41 min Chimney1 129
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 51 min Aura Mytha 173,444
What exactly is life? Chimcal mix or more than ... 1 hr Chimney1 21
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 13 hr Zog Has-fallen 82
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 20 hr Zog Has-fallen 97
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Fri Zog Has-fallen 55
More from around the web