Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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

Macclesfield, UK

#117558 Feb 16, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you ought to trademark that phrase: "After all, it's all just part of the evil worldwide atheist Darwinist evolutionist Liberal socialist Communist Nazi gayhomo anti-Christian God-hating, Satan-worshipping, baby-eating Jewish Illuminati conspiracy."
Could I use it sometime???
:-)
Aye, it's one I use from time to time. By all means, have fun with it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117559 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You employ two fallacies in the above statement:
1. You attempt to prove evolution by arguing that God is more implausible.
2. You think that "consensus" is "science". Every scientific breakthrough in history began by challenging
consensus.
You don't have a leg to stand on.
Actually we do, since you have yet to challenge the consensus.

You just keep accusing us all of being "mean old atheists" instead.

Even those of us who aren't atheists.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117560 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
From HTS
Complete BS. Non-coding does not mean "non-functional". Your entire junk DNA paradigm has crashed.
Except it hasn't. HTS has been promoting that lie for months, but never addressed the fact that the genome's function is not a prediction of common ancestry, but rather the pattern of inheritance. And that is what we see in the genome. Non-coding doesn't have to necessarily mean non-functional, ie: chicken teeth due to non-coding DNA *could* be argued to be "functional". Either way though it's one that backs up evolution, not creationism.

Then he forgets that we got SIFTER which predicts protein function with 96% accuracy while HTS's alternative predicts it with 0% accuracy. Because uh, he doesn't HAVE an alternative. On top of THAT, the premise of creationism is that humans have all suffered "genomic deterioration" since TEH FALL! Meaning that any creo "prediction" of 100% genome function is at odds with their theology. Neither HTS or Cowboy have been able to address that either.

Of course all of this is utterly moot since their "scientific" position is that everything was magically poofed into existence by an invisible Jewish wizard.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117561 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Your regurgitated atheist BS is getting annoying. The "mountains of scientific evidence" of which you speak is non-existent. You can keep parroting the same worn out cliches, but you haven't proven anything.
You keep projecting your own failures onto others.

Seems you're only here for the same reasons Cowboy and Markie are - just to know that there are mean old evo's who disagree with you, and as long as they are there then your belief in that good old line from Romans is enough to validate your theology.

Us infidels make you feel better by feeding your ego.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117562 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know? You haven't examined all of the evidence. You have categorically rejected it because of your atheistic religion.
Then what evidence has been left unexamined that scientifically demonstrates the existence of invisible magical Jewish wizardry?

Do tell.

.

Because uh, the other day I thought you said that there wasn't any.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117563 Feb 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And atheists never reject evidence.
Well...

Actually there is always Skippy the 'Skeptic'. He's an idiot.

Just sayin'.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117564 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You're living in fantasyland. Evolution is not a universally accepted scientific theory. You apparently go with the flow.
You're quite right - the Lizard people of Proxima Centauri VIII think that the universe was created by an invisible talking snake. So evolution is not universally accepted.

It IS accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community however.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117565 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Nice dodge.
You've been dodging for MONTHS.

Care to make it years?

Cowboy has.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117566 Feb 16, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Here's the Dude accepting he is a moron....
Ha ha
Some TRUTH finally
Speaking of dodging, still playing the role of Black Knight I see. Or maybe it's Brave Sir Robin.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117567 Feb 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Again, or me, of course this is easy and satisfying. God created the universe.
Yup. Very easy. Very primitive.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Life only comes from life.
Not according to you. According to you, God is a life-form and it didn't come from life. Neither did the first life on Earth, since according to creationism it was done artificially. Like Frankenstein.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I just have a very hard time accepting your, "I don't know". That is not an opinion, that is you just telling me what the current state of the science is but I already know that. When you do that, it is insulting really. Like I told Kong, you are not typing out peer-reviewed research or anything. Surely you must be able to think for yourself. You people seem to act as though there is a some panel of evolutionist judges or examiners watching you to see if you break any rules or something. Just tell me the truth damn it.
Okay.

You're an idiot.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117568 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>you obviously have no concept of "survival of the fittest"
And apparently you have no concept of "survival of the barely adequate".

As long as it survives, their lineage will evolve. If it stops evolving then that means it's extinct.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117569 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
For the last time... Consensus is not science.
Then why ask for science?

The scientific consensus IS that evolution happened. We then provide you with the science they provide. You ignore it because:

1 - You're only interested in Goddidit with magic.

2 - You're a typical dishonest fundie liar for Jesus.

3 - Your position is anti-science to the core.

4 - Because of which you reject scientific consensus.

5 - Because of which your demand for scientific evidence can NEVER be satisfied. Not because we have no science to support our position, but because you have already decided it does not and cannot exist no matter what.

So again, why ask for what your theology demands you reject at all costs?

It might not be so bad if you could actually DISCUSS the subjects involved and attempt a reasonable rebuttal. Even Cowboy has tried in the past (until he eventually gave up and realised there was no point). But you can't even do that. You just call us a bunch of mean old atheists even if we don't mention theism in any way shape or form.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117570 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I asked you for numbers on scientists who believed in "molecules-to-man" evolution, and you failed to provide them. What percentage of scientists believe that no intelligent design exists?
"Molecules to man" does not state there is no ID.

Evolution is not atheism.

Doesn't matter HOW many Coynes or Dawkins's you throw at us. The claim that evolution is atheism is falsified by just ONE Francis Collins. ONE Kenneth Miller. ONE Allan Chapman. ONE Robert Winston.

Oh, AND the fact that the scientific theory of evolution makes no theological claims.

So tell me again how you were able to ascertain God's limits so that it couldn't use evolution.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117571 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
It's absolutely hilarious that the Evo morons would point to the fossil records, when out of billions of fossils, evolutionists point to two, would be samples of theorized change.
That's as pathetic as it gets folks.
Actually that's incorrect. "Evolutionists" would point to two, then PREDICT that another would be found inbetween with characteristics of both.

And they succeed.

Numerous times.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117572 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Tack trips above should be,-- tack strips.
Ah, finally. Something you know about.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117573 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
1 - False.
2 - Straw-man
3 - The hypothesis of abiogenesis has no bearing on the scientific theory of evolution. If it does then the theory of gravity is BS because it can't explain the origin of mass.
4 - False, and also contradicts your claims of 100% genome function.
HTS wrote:
These are facts that cannot logically be refuted. Al you can do is vary attempt to set up smokescreens.
False.

And you've known this for months.

Seriously bub, change the record.

We don't have to because you don't have anything new.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117574 Feb 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well...
Actually there is always Skippy the 'Skeptic'. He's an idiot.
Just sayin'.
You are right. I should have said most atheists. Obviously, well to everyone but HTS and company, atheists do not follow a leader. They tend to be a rather independent group.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117575 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".
If that's the case then how come the modern evolutionary synthesis makes no theological claims? And how come believers of God accept evolution?

God does not care about the petty limits you attempt to place on Him.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117576 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks to you and Russell for bringing science to this board.
When was that? 2099? I didn't know you were buddies with the Doctor!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117577 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Typical atheist BS.....
Was it? His last question was certainly a rational one - why is God a no-show?

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) 25 min THE LONE WORKER 199,467
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 36 min One way or another 35,411
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr ChromiuMan 151,358
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr thetruth 14,958
the dinosaurs of the lega-warega people: racial... 4 hr MIDutch 2
Ribose can be produced in space 4 hr MIDutch 7
And another gap gets closed 4 hr MIDutch 1
More from around the web