Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117523 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Kinda funny how Petco is repeating my claims about tacks trips hurting dogs and cats,--even if they understand so little.
Oh we'll, what can you expect from the heads of major corporations, when they graduated from monkey see monkey do American school system.

I doubt it, but it would not be the ten millionth time that a delusional idea infected more people than the person with the original delusion.
One way or another

United States

#117524 Feb 16, 2013
Funny how out of billions of fossils, the evolutionists can only point to two individual creatures as theoretically evolved.

Monkey see monkey say, Evo children.

It's so amazing how the Evo children can point to billions of fossils and have only 2 hypothetical examples of fossil evolution and they even brag about it, its no wonder they are perceived as morons.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#117525 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Funny how out of billions of fossils, the evolutionists can only point to two individual creatures as theoretically evolved.
Monkey see monkey say, Evo children.
It's so amazing how the Evo children can point to billions of fossils and have only 2 hypothetical examples of fossil evolution and they even brag about it, its no wonder they are perceived as morons.
Forget that - fancy backing up your statement that petco had stumbled across you tack strip nonsense

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117526 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Funny how out of billions of fossils, the evolutionists can only point to two individual creatures as theoretically evolved.
Monkey see monkey say, Evo children.
It's so amazing how the Evo children can point to billions of fossils and have only 2 hypothetical examples of fossil evolution and they even brag about it, its no wonder they are perceived as morons.

It is amazing that you never have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Humanoid

Kansas City, MO

#117527 Feb 16, 2013
To be human: To believe what I read. To believe the internet. To believe all that I see, all that I hear, all that I feel, all that I touch, all that I smell, all that I.........I am a human. Why do humans place themselves above animals? Why do humans believe in God/Devil, Heaven/Hell? Afterlife? Reincarnation? Sacrifice? Why so many different Gods/religions? One God, one religion? Is god black or white? Why is God a noshow?
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#117528 Feb 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is amazing that you never have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Not amazing, just a bit sad really.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117529 Feb 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You would have to define your terms.
Physicists acknowledge and attest to physical evolution.
Chemists acknowledge and attest to chemical evolution.
Biologists acknowledge and attest to biological evolution.
Few scientists believe in literal creationism as it is presented in the bible. What is called ID is nothing other than creationism. That does not mean that many don't have some spiritual beliefs or believe there is some cause behind it.
What a load of pure unadulterated BS. I've been asking for science, not evo--babbling.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117530 Feb 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is an observable fact, as I have pointed out may times. We do not need to "prove" evolution, gravity, light,.... etc because they are observable facts.
Science DOES need to develop sound theories of WHY these things occur, and to test these theories (by making predictions that are true, for example). In this way we know that the theory of evolution is on the firmest of grounds as are the theories of light and gravitation. Of course gravitation still needs some work, but it will eventually happen.
. NDT has made predictions that invariably FAIL...the hallmark of a also hypothesis.
Examples:
1. The failed junk DNA debacle
2. The false paradigm of genetic determinism
3. The utter failure to propose any viable theory of abiogenesis.
4. Genetic entropy

These are facts that cannot logically be refuted. Al you can do is vary attempt to set up smokescreens.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117531 Feb 16, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is an observable fact, as I have pointed out may times. We do not need to "prove" evolution, gravity, light,.... etc because they are observable facts.
Science DOES need to develop sound theories of WHY these things occur, and to test these theories (by making predictions that are true, for example). In this way we know that the theory of evolution is on the firmest of grounds as are the theories of light and gravitation. Of course gravitation still needs some work, but it will eventually happen.
Comparing NDT to the theory of gravity is worn out BS popularized by the likes of Dawkins. The incessant parroting of propaganda doesn't make it so.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117532 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Provable science is great. Evolution is pure BS. Evolution has brought nothing worthwhile to science or the people. It brings nothing but fighting.
The reason it brings fighting is simple...Darwinism is nothing more than the religion of atheism cleverly packaged as "science".
One way or another

United States

#117533 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The reason it brings fighting is simple...Darwinism is nothing more than the religion of atheism cleverly packaged as "science".
Thanks to you and Russell for bringing science to this board.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117534 Feb 16, 2013
Humanoid wrote:
To be human: To believe what I read. To believe the internet. To believe all that I see, all that I hear, all that I feel, all that I touch, all that I smell, all that I.........I am a human. Why do humans place themselves above animals? Why do humans believe in God/Devil, Heaven/Hell? Afterlife? Reincarnation? Sacrifice? Why so many different Gods/religions? One God, one religion? Is god black or white? Why is God a noshow?
Typical atheist BS.....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117535 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. NDT has made predictions that invariably FAIL...the hallmark of a also hypothesis.
Examples:
1. The failed junk DNA debacle
2. The false paradigm of genetic determinism
3. The utter failure to propose any viable theory of abiogenesis.
4. Genetic entropy
These are facts that cannot logically be refuted. Al you can do is vary attempt to set up smokescreens.
Wrong on all counts.

1. The fact that Encode found more coding DNA than was previously thought to exist does not make the concept of "junk DNA" wrong. There is still quite a bit of the genome that does not code.

2. WTF? Genetic determinism? Who ever used that?

3. Doubly wrong. Abiogenesis is a separate subject from evolution. You have been corrected on this many times over. Which means either you are a complete idiot, a liar, or both.

Second, it is a work in progress. A work in progress is by definition not an utter failure, especially since they have had so many successful experiments.

4. No, genetic entropy was never even properly proposed. That nonsense was dead before it hit the floor.

You have been corrected countless times on this one too.

How many times do you have to repeat the same errors before you don't repeat them again? Are you like Urb who makes the same mistakes hundreds and hundreds of times?

It gets boring after a while.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117536 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks to you and Russell for bringing science to this board.
Ha! You know you are a friggin idiot if Jimbo is on your side.
One way or another

United States

#117537 Feb 16, 2013
Just because we don't see all our DNA in action, that doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Bacteria and DNA are as one. For every bit of DNA, there is its counterpart in bacteria.

There is so much bacteria in us that seems as if it does nothing, just as DNA, however, the future will prove what I claim.

Present day already proves that bacteria control our DNA.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117538 Feb 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong on all counts.
1. The fact that Encode found more coding DNA than was previously thought to exist does not make the concept of "junk DNA" wrong. There is still quite a bit of the genome that does not code.
2. WTF? Genetic determinism? Who ever used that?
3. Doubly wrong. Abiogenesis is a separate subject from evolution. You have been corrected on this many times over. Which means either you are a complete idiot, a liar, or both.
Second, it is a work in progress. A work in progress is by definition not an utter failure, especially since they have had so many successful experiments.
4. No, genetic entropy was never even properly proposed. That nonsense was dead before it hit the floor.
You have been corrected countless times on this one too.
How many times do you have to repeat the same errors before you don't repeat them again? Are you like Urb who makes the same mistakes hundreds and hundreds of times?
It gets boring after a while.
As usual, you don't scientifically refute anything...
...and please elaborate how genetic entropy was "dead before it hit the floor"... Are you telling me that there is no genetic entropy? What is Natural selection doing with over 100 mutations per generation. None of your ramblings can refute scientific observation.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117539 Feb 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong on all counts.
1. The fact that Encode found more coding DNA than was previously thought to exist does not make the concept of "junk DNA" wrong. There is still quite a bit of the genome that does not code.
.
We've been through this before. Non-coding doesn't mean "non-functional"... ENCODE found that at least 80% of human DNA is functional, not the 2% that was being peddled by atheists for three decades. The junk DNA paradigm is yet another abject failure of evolutionary theory. Now that the facts are undeniable, all you can do is lie and pretend that whatever is observed is "predicted" by NDT.
One way or another

United States

#117540 Feb 16, 2013
What I predict above is exactly what the Evo morons do. They see a pattern start to emerge and then they claim to make predictions.

Anyone with half a brain can do it, hence the BS Evo scientists, predictions.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117541 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>As usual, you don't scientifically refute anything...
...and please elaborate how genetic entropy was "dead before it hit the floor"... Are you telling me that there is no genetic entropy? What is Natural selection doing with over 100 mutations per generation. None of your ramblings can refute scientific observation.
There was no need to. You have posted this nonsense before and it was refuted before.

You have earned the idiot badge by not even undertaking the very simple chore of understanding what constitutes scientific evidence and why it is defined in the way it is defined.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117542 Feb 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong on all counts.

2. WTF? Genetic determinism? Who ever used that?
3. Doubly wrong. Abiogenesis is a separate subject from evolution. You have been corrected on this many times i.
Maybe if you seriously studied the literature you would understand that the "DNA-is-everything" paradigm is now proven false by the ENCODE project. Why don't you evaluate scientific results and humbly admit that your atheistic intuitions are false?

Abiogenesis is something you cannot dodge. If you claim that God had no part in the creation of species, you have to explain how life could have begun without God... Simply divorcing yourself from the subject is intellectually dishonest.
...and another thing... Where do you draw the line between life and non-life. Given your paradigm of complete relativism, at what point does the theory of evolution start?

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Eagle 12 - 79,988
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr River Tam 163,777
News Intelligent design (Jul '15) 5 hr Dogen 571
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 hr ChromiuMan 222,780
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Fri River Tam 32,582
What's your religion? Fri Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
More from around the web