Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 20 comments on the Feb 24, 2008, www.scientificblogging.com story 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.

One way or another

Sarasota, FL

#116668 Feb 10, 2013
phaedrus wrote:
<quoted text>
Our galaxy is not moving in the same direction as all others. In general, galaxies are moving away from each other. If they are close enough together, galaxies may move towards each other due to gravity. Andromeda is an example of a galaxy that is sufficiently close that gravity is pulling us together. There are other examples of clusters of galaxies falling in on each other.
We can measure the relative direction and speed of any galaxy we can see (we can't see all galaxies).
Happy?
Thanks, because by your words, science cannot prove red shift.:-)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116669 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, because by your words, science cannot prove red shift.:-)

The red shift is an observation, not something science needs to prove.

Please read a science book so we do not have to keep teaching 6th grade science class with you.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116670 Feb 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The red shift is an observation, not something science needs to prove.
Please read a science book so we do not have to keep teaching 6th grade science class with you.
Must admit - I only know the 'basics' of physics as found it a bit dry (sorry) and concentrated on biology and chemistry up to degree level.

I say this not in an attempt at humility (though being British is hard to fight off the urge - and queuing - we are ALL about the queuing)

But to point out that I don't comment as I am not au fait enough with the subject.

Can you see the point I am making here ?
One way or another

United States

#116671 Feb 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, idiot. Like a fundamental force of nature. it can remain constant, but the behavior of all the objects subject to that force is not static. Just like the rock falling down a cliff because of the constant force of gravity.
Got it YET????
Geeze moron, einsteinium cosmological constant described a static universe. Since you're too stupid to understand, static has NO force moron.

Get a brain moron.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116672 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Geeze moron, einsteinium cosmological constant described a static universe. Since you're too stupid to understand, static has NO force moron.
Get a brain moron.
Then how come static electricity makes balloons stick to your jumper?

MORON
One way or another

United States

#116673 Feb 10, 2013
You morons were claiming that red shift proved an expanding universe. You morons change faster than the wind.
One way or another

United States

#116674 Feb 10, 2013
Darn phone and it evil tendencies. In an above post, einsteinium should read, Einstein.
One way or another

United States

#116675 Feb 10, 2013
To all you morons with shit for brains, static is not static electricity. Lol
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116676 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
To all you morons with shit for brains, static is not static electricity. Lol
So you have got the abilities to read and respond to other people's posts.

So respond to this.

You were adamant last year that your announcement on the 23rd of January would shake the science world to its core and make you millions.

You were wrong then - why should anyone think you are correct now with that as a track record?

Now you have shown you can

A) comprehend other people's posts.
B) respond when it suits your purpose.

As I say - respond rationally to this one - or admit that you are a Poe
One way or another

United States

#116677 Feb 10, 2013
Yoo hoo, morons,-- static 1. pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2. showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3. lacking movement, development, or vitality: The novel was marred by static characterizations, especially in its central figures.
One way or another

United States

#116678 Feb 10, 2013
Hey Evo morons, which scientist wrote the following on the web site,--http://universalium.aca demic.ru/97635/cosmological_co nstant

Astron.
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. Cf. Einstein model.
[1925-30]
***

Term reluctantly added by Albert Einstein to his equations of general relativity in order to obtain a solution to the equations that described a static universe, as he believed it to be at the time.
The constant has the effect of a repulsive force that acts against the gravitational attraction of matter in the universe. When Einstein heard of the evidence that the universe is expanding, he called the introduction of the cosmological constant the "biggest blunder" of his life. Recent developments suggest that in the early universe there may well have been a cosmological constant with a nonzero value.
***

Which scientists confirmed this shit?
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116679 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Yoo hoo, morons,-- static 1. pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2. showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3. lacking movement, development, or vitality: The novel was marred by static characterizations, especially in its central figures.
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have got the abilities to read and respond to other people's posts.
So respond to this.
You were adamant last year that your announcement on the 23rd of January would shake the science world to its core and make you millions.
You were wrong then - why should anyone think you are correct now with that as a track record?
Now you have shown you can
A) comprehend other people's posts.
B) respond when it suits your purpose.
As I say - respond rationally to this one - or admit that you are a Poe
In your own time
One way or another

United States

#116680 Feb 10, 2013
I don't bother with the most deceitful idiots, but then all you Evo morons prove just how stupid you choose to be.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116681 Feb 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
I don't bother with the most deceitful idiots, but then all you Evo morons prove just how stupid you choose to be.
Translation :

That nasty mugwump keeps pointing out the total failure of my past delusions and correctly points out why anyone should think I am right now - when I was so obviously wrong before.

I know I have screwed this up a bit when he deceitfully equated a static universe hypothesis with static electricity, in a sense parodying me - I responded to that - but now he has called me on something I don't wont to admit to - I will pretend I don't respond, even though I just did

Mine is a confused world.

--------

Don't worry Jimbo - everyone gets the message - the translation is probably redundant so I won't invoice you for it.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116682 Feb 10, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation :
That nasty mugwump keeps pointing out the total failure of my past delusions and correctly points out why anyone should think I am right now - when I was so obviously wrong before.
I know I have screwed this up a bit when he deceitfully equated a static universe hypothesis with static electricity, in a sense parodying me - I responded to that - but now he has called me on something I don't wont to admit to - I will pretend I don't respond, even though I just did
Mine is a confused world.
--------
Don't worry Jimbo - everyone gets the message - the translation is probably redundant so I won't invoice you for it.
Fascinating - 6 posts from Jimbo in about 30 minutes - then when I call him on his dishonest nature - nothing.

Well think have shown that he chooses not to answer posts that he finds awkward as they directly show his failings.

Hopefully he at least does spend some time pondering this even if he dosent respond.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116683 Feb 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You base your beliefs on YOUR (mis)understanding of a single old book of religious stories and teachings. Other base theirs on hundreds of years of modern science. it is not a popularity contests. One is right and the way to be has always been with the evidence.
Why would Creationism not be science?

It was the Judeo-Christian world view that led to the scientific method and science today should thank ad acknowledge its Christian founders

According to Dr Sarfati-- PhD Physical Chemist, who published in Nature in his twenties, and is a New Zealand chess champion, a creationist-- science historians have pointed out that modern science FIRST flourished under a Christian world view

Whereas it was STILLBORN in other cultures such as ancient Greece, China and Arabia

There are certain essential features, as per Dr Sarfati, that make science possible

1) Belief in objective truth

2) The Universe is real
This sounds obvious but, but eastern philosophies believe everything is an illusion

3) The Universe is orderly, because God is a God of order and not confusion--1Cor 14:33
Dr Sarfati puts it this way
If there is no creator, or if Zeus and his gang were in charge, why should there be any order at all?
If some Eastern religions were right that the Universe is a Great Thought, then it could change its mind at any moment

A fundamental facet of science is to derive laws that provide for predictable outcomes. This is only possible because the Univers eIS orderly

4) Since God is sovereign, He was free to create as He pleased. So the only way to fond out how his Creation works is to INVESTIGATE and EXPERIMENT
And not reply on man-made philosophies like the ancient Greek did

This is illustrated with Galileo Galilei 1564-1642. He showed by experiment that weights fall at the same speed, apart from air resistance....this refuted teh Greek philosophy the heavy objects fall faster.

He also showed by OBSERVATION that the sun had spots, refuting the Greek idea that the heavenly bodies are perfect

Another example cited by Dr Sarfati, is Johannes Kepler 1571-1630, who discovered that planets moved in ellipses around the sun.
This refuted the Greek philosophies that insisted on circles because they are the most 'perfect' shapes, which pesented the cumbersome problem of 'eoicycles' to try to accomodate the observations

But when it comes to origins as opposed to understanding how things work, God has revealed that He created about 6000 yrs ago over 6 normal-length days, and judged the Earth with a globe-covering flood about 4,500 yrs ago. Its no accident, says Dr Sarfati, that Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC and Isacc Newton 1643-1727, probably the greatest scientist of all time, also strongly defended biblical chronology

5) Man can and should investigate the world, because God gave us dominion over His creation, Gen 1:28, creation is not divine

Many other founders of modern science saw their scientific research as bringing glory to God

Newton said
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called 'Lord God'--Pantokrator--Greek---
or Universal Ruler...The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect

--From
Principia, Book III, cited in: Newton's Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his writings, p 42, ed H S Thayer, Hafner Library of Classics, NY, 1953
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116684 Feb 10, 2013
Newton also said:

"Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors"

--"A short Scheme of the True Religion, manuscript quoted in Memoirs of the Life, Writings and discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton" by Sir David Brewster, Edinburgh, 1850, cited in Newtons Philosophy of Nature, p 65, Ref on last post
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116685 Feb 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Creatards have not shown that there is bias against creationism. When an article is submitted for peer review the mistakes in the article are found by the reviewers. Mistakes can be gross errors, unsupported claims, false conclusions, etc.. They are not limited to just gross errors. A lot of work by creationists have the error of unsupported assumptions. That was the error that John Sanford made if I remember correctly. From there all of his work went down the toilet.
........
Creationists articles errors are usually fatal. Correcting the mistakes would make it a non-creationist article. If their articles were not error laden you could link or site some. No one from your side ever does that. There is plenty of money in the creatard movement, yet none of them ever show how their articles got rejected due to prejudice.

That lack on their part shouts volumes.
And yes, you missed where I debunked your comet claim. I explained it to you. I gave a nice video with links to papers in the video. You came up with nothing in response. No links. One claim that showed you did not check out the information that I gave you.
Lastly, yes, some creatard may have beaten someone from TalkOrigins in a "debate". Of course I have not seen the debate but I am betting the creationist lost. Maybe not by the public opinion of the audience, which are often loaded with uneducated creationists, but if reviewed and it was checked out who was right in their claims and who was wrong in their claims I am sure the creationist lost. If you add on the qualification that if someone lied or said something that he should have known he loses then I am sure that the creationist lost. I have never seen a debate where the creationist did not use some sort of dishonest statements.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists may have good math when they do noncreationist activities, when they engage in creationism it seems that all talent goes out the window. What lie is Humphreys responsible for?
So creationist math is fine usually but when their creation-hats go on, their brains get fried and they are unable to do maths anymore

That's like saying its ok for dark skinned people to work in your cotton fields but its not ok for them to dine at your table

Creation RACISM

So Dr Werner Gitt, creationist and evangelist, is a fried brain cretard DESPITE....

Quote from his biography:

Werner obtained his degree in engineering from the Technical University in Hanover, Germany. After receiving his Ph.D. he was appointed head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB], in Braunschweig). Seven years later he was promoted to Director and Professor at PTB.1 His research concerns have involved information science, mathematics, and systems control technology. His many original research findings have been published in scientific journals or have been the subject of papers presented at scientific conferences and at universities in Germany and around the world.

http://creation.com/dr-werner-gitt

Not a real scientist naturally

Why? Because he believes God created in 6 normal length days

In the above link you will note the following:

Three prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the German Ministerium to award the title ‘Director and Professor’ at a German research institute, on the recommendation of the Praesidium. The person concerned must be:
A scientist. I.e. it is most definitely an academic title.
One who has published a significant number of original research papers in the technical literature.
Must head a department in his area of expertise, in which several working scientists are employed.

But what do the Germans know.....right?

They're jackasses for employing a creationist as head of a science establishment...

And then there the whole issue of Hitler...

CREATION RACISM

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116686 Feb 10, 2013
Russell you complete idiot. Please try to read what I post, not what you want people to post.

There are a few creation scientists who can do science within their own specialty. When they get out of their specialties they become complete idiots.

Creationism could be a science, but it is the creationists fault that it is not a science. They do not follow the scientific method. That can be shown by the way that they avoid peer review for their articles.

They know their science is bad and that is why they avoid peer review. Witt may be a genius in his field. Outside of it he lets his personal beliefs cloud his judgement. How many peer reviewed papers does he have that support creationism?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116687 Feb 10, 2013
How about another un-real scientist
Dr John Baumgardner
B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

John Baumgardner was working on a Ph.D. in electrical engineering when he discovered the reality of Jesus in a dramatic way through a group Bible study of the Gospel of John. After a four-year tour of duty at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, where he was engaged in gas dynamic laser research, he joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ.

OBSERVING THE DELIBERATE USE OF EVOLUTION TO ASSAULT AND DESTROY THE FAITH OF CHRISTIAN COLLEGE STUDENTS...

Observing the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the faith of Christian college students, Dr Baumgardner began to develop and present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution’s false claims.

Upon realizing that Noah’s Flood involved a planetary-scale tectonic catastrophe, he left Campus Crusade to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level. His Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical-shell finite-element model for the earth’s mantle, a program now known as TERRA.

Upon completing his Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics, he accepted a position as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he continued his research in planetary mantle dynamics, including the potential for catastrophic mantle overturn. He presented his work describing this mechanism for the Genesis Flood, now known as ‘catastrophic plate tectonics,’ at six International Conferences on Creationism held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dr Baumgardner’s technical work at Los Alamos included development of a new global ocean model for investigating climate change. He served as a member of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team and led the RATE research effort on carbon-14. He retired from Los Alamos in 2004 and joined the Institute for Creation Research in 2005 where he helped develop a state-of-the-art computer program named Mendel’s Accountant for modeling of the processes of mutation and natural selection. In 2008 he joined Logos Research Associates, a collaborative network of Christian research scientists whose focus is origins and earth history issues from a Biblical perspective.

Quite clearly not a real scientist

CREATION RACISM

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) 12 min Denisova 161,025
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 18 min Chimney1 1,384
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 24 min MikeF 141,290
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Thinking 18,694
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 9 hr GTID62 13,671
No Place For ID? Sat GTID62 1
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Apr 23 MikeF 73
More from around the web