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

#116968 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It's amusing how atheists cannot logically defend any of their precepts without bringing up religion.
Go take it up with them. I'm not the one who brought it up. YOU did.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116969 Feb 12, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that you're lying as usual.(shrug)
What ACTUALLY happens is that we provide evidence for evolution. You DON'T address it, and merely disregard it as "atheism", despite the fact that atheism doesn't even have to be mentioned whatsoever.
THEN you complain that we don't take IDC seriously. This is DESPITE the fact that we ASK you for scientific evidence for it, which you then FAIL to provide.
Then BECAUSE of your EPIC FAIL, we reject your hypothesis and conclude that our acceptance of evolution instead "must" be based in atheism. Even though that many Christians also have no problem accepting evolution.
In short, you project your own religious failings onto others.
Predictably, Dude, once your religion is dismantled by the cruel sword of scientific logic and you are left naked with nothing to defend, you resort to calling your opponent a "liar". It's amusing to watch an atheist self-implode. I've provided you with mountains of scientific evidence that systematically debunks every major tenet of evolution, from the failed junk DNA debacle to the fallacy of radiometric dating. What have you done with this information? You haven't objectively evaluated it. You've only increased your ranting and name calling because I've insulted your religion. You have been pierced to the core because you know that your beliefs cannot be defended by any objective science.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116970 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Dude, you're engaging in evo-babbling again. You are failing to make a single valid point.
You're not even creative in your evasion. Do you just have all your posts copy-pasted on a file? You could never tell.

How is orthology atheistic?

How is common ancestry atheistic?

What does atheism or theism have to do with science?

Do you also complain about weather-guys on TV attributing storms to high and low pressure systems and stuff instead of invoking Yahweh or Thor?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#116971 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>A consensus opinion is not science. It is OPINION. When Einstein proproposed his theory of relativity, the CONSENSUS was proven WRONG.
A consensus that has lasted over 150 years is a pretty strong consensus.

Especially since creotards have been trying to tear it down for the same amount of time.

I wonder why they haven't been able to.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116972 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Dude, dispense with the BS and for once formulate a single logical thought. Do you have any scientific evidence that man evolved from a worm?
Have I ever made that claim or is that just your usual old caricature? Ah yes, of course it is.
HTS wrote:
No, you have none... you have your religion, and nothing else.
No, I have evidence. You've never addressed it.

Ever.

Not once.

At all.

Not even a ickle widdle tiny bit.
HTS wrote:
If there's some science behind your beliefs, then let's see it.
Why ask for what has already been provided over and over?

Why ask for what you're not even interested in?

Why not actually address the evidence for once instead of just whining about mean old atheists?

It's quite amusing how dishonest you are, considering that God is watching you. VERY closely...
HTS wrote:
All I ever hear from you are childish insults and vain attempts to intimidate detractors of your cherished religion of atheism.
That's because that's only what you want to see. In the meantime all evidence I present is left unaddressed and all positive assertions of atheism made by me are invented by your tiny scared little uneducated mind.

Now THAT last part there WAS an insult.

Accurate, but still an insult.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116973 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Blah Blah Blah. "you're wrong and I'm right"... I'm asking for scientific evidence for evolution, not stories or name calling.
No you are not. You were given a clear task to do first.

You are not fooling anyone with this nonsense.

By the way, it is not name calling if it is true. So quit acting like an idiot and I will stop calling you one. Everyone but an idiot could figure that out.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116974 Feb 12, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
That last word. You keep on using it. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'm pretty sure what he means by "transmutation" is that a new species is created from one generation to the next. Like, generation 1= fish, generation 2= frog. He pretends that that has something to do with the ToE. He cannot find any evidence against every generation producing very small changes, and the result over thousands or millions of years equals evolution.

Yup, set up strawman, knock it down. That's all he has.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116975 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
I see that you're embracing the perverted logic of atheism. You imagine that pits and crags in cliffs and ocean waves are just as complex as DNA.
Where did I ever make that claim?

I didn't.

The fact is they are complex. Complex as DNA? Well that depends upon how it's measured. So now I will help you:

In order for you to demonstrate your positive claim that the complexity of DNA means it was intelligently designed then you need to provide us with the measuring system you're using to measure the complexity of DNA. You must be able to assign it a precise numerical value AND you must also provide us with the demarcation line along that measure between designed and non-designed - that is, once the number reaches past a certain point we can definitively say that this must be designed because it has a complexity value of X and that isn't designed because it didn't quite reach that demarcation line. Oh, and you must also inform us of how you determined exactly what that demarcation line was in an objective manner via the scientific method. You must also provide us with an example of a NON-designed object/phenomena in order for us to compare it, and other items, with DNA, hence we can now objectively measure them all along your complexity measurement tool.

If this sounds familiar it is because it's PRECISELY what I asked you to provide well over 6 months ago now, and you failed to do so. But because I am a kind, generous and abiding Dude I am offering you another chance. Best of luck with your scientific endeavour!
HTS wrote:
I'm sorry, Dude, concepts of order and complexity cannot be rationalized away by a worldview of complete relativism.
No rationalizing whatsoever. As you can quite clearly see above I am looking for an objective measurement system so as the "science" of IDC can be verified.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#116976 Feb 12, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You ask how, so I'll tell you. I know because I don't lie to myself, I don't play your games of keeping up with the Jonse's or being part of any clique, with justice and care at home, while the world taught the opposite, to any that dared stand against all the injustice. It comes from my work, my play and my determination, along with copious amounts of reading, simple.
In other words you don't know what you are talking about. I suspected that.

Do yourself a favor and actually read the paper by Doctor Wiens about dating technology.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116977 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Predictably, Dude, once your religion is dismantled by the cruel sword of scientific logic and you are left naked with nothing to defend, you resort to calling your opponent a "liar".
I don't resort. I merely provide accurate descriptions. It's not my fault you completely lack substance.
HTS wrote:
It's amusing to watch an atheist self-implode.
Yes, I've seen it happen to Skippy the 'Skeptic'. However since I'm not one you haven't seen that with me.

Not that you're able to tell since you even think Dogen is an atheist.(snicker)
HTS wrote:
I've provided you with mountains of scientific evidence that systematically debunks every major tenet of evolution, from the failed junk DNA debacle to the fallacy of radiometric dating.
And we in turn have debunked that. And you in turn have NOT provided a counter-rebuttal. You merely start repeating yourself. The only reason we repeat ourselves is because you don't provide anything new, and we don't receive any rational counters.
HTS wrote:
What have you done with this information? You haven't objectively evaluated it.
Actually we have.
HTS wrote:
You've only increased your ranting and name calling because I've insulted your religion. You have been pierced to the core because you know that your beliefs cannot be defended by any objective science.
It's nice you have such wet dreams, but that's all they will remain as long as you continue to beat up caricatures. We on the other hand are still waiting for you to deal with the real thing.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116978 Feb 12, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm pretty sure what he means by "transmutation" is that a new species is created from one generation to the next. Like, generation 1= fish, generation 2= frog. He pretends that that has something to do with the ToE. He cannot find any evidence against every generation producing very small changes, and the result over thousands or millions of years equals evolution.
Yup, set up strawman, knock it down. That's all he has.
Yes, he's still using 150 year old terminology which no longer appplies. That way he can attack "Darwinism" as it was back in his day rather than directly address what is today known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116979 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I see that you're embracing the perverted logic of atheism. You imagine that pits and crags in cliffs and ocean waves are just as complex as DNA. I'm sorry, Dude, concepts of order and complexity cannot be rationalized away by a worldview of complete relativism.
Actually, there is no known limit to the order and complexity that the natural world can produce. If think you know of such a limit, you should be able to provide some evidence.
Avanzado

Kansas City, MO

#116980 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Dude, you're engaging in evo-babbling again. You are failing to make a single valid point.
Creo bible babbling is different because..........

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#116981 Feb 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sin is not inherited, tis true.
But god can curse as many generations as he wants.
I suppose He could if He were real

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116982 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Dinosaur fossils are essentially never subjected to direct radiometric dating methods.
Correct. But surely some creationist "scientist" should have the ability to apply for a grant to C14 test some dino bones.

Well, it's reasonable to assume that some YEC has already done that, and it's also reasonable to assume that they would not like the results they got.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#116983 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You've been spewing the same regurgitated aheist BS over and over and over again. I'm asking for science.
LMAO!!!! It has been given over and over and over and over........ "aheist BS"?? Never heard of it.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#116984 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> My attempts to engage in honest debate on this forum have only confirmed what I already suspected... A belief in evolution is nothing more than a religion founded on a predetermined committment to atheism.
Bwaaahahahahahahahaa!!!!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#116985 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>THere is no science behind Darwinism... only bedtime stories.
You sir are full of sh!t.

Go to school and learn something.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116986 Feb 12, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double-O-Ar...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PSM_V3...

What are the complexity values of each of these and how were they determined?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#116987 Feb 12, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. But surely some creationist "scientist" should have the ability to apply for a grant to C14 test some dino bones.
Well, it's reasonable to assume that some YEC has already done that, and it's also reasonable to assume that they would not like the results they got.
It doesn't matter what results they got. They don't even believe in carbon dating anyway. In reality we can't get an accurate reading as it would be using the wrong test in the wrong way. If the result happened to end up at 6,000 or less then the fundies can celebrate that the Earth must only be that old even though they don't believe in carbon dating. If the result ends up anywhere from 13,000 to 100,000 years old then the fundies can rejoice that they "knew" that carbon dating is inaccurate, even though it's not capable of dating things past 100,000 years at a real push.

Hence why it's pointless using such a test on anything suspected of being millions of years old because we can't expect the results to be accurate.

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 Paul Porter1 142,675
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 21 min Brian_G 20,650
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 23 min Paul Porter1 292
Dr. David Berlinski corrects himself on whale e... 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 53
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr miso 172,003
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 11 hr Paul Porter1 38
News Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationis... (Apr '13) Sat Chimney1 248
More from around the web