Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178667 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.

One way or another

United States

#117613 Feb 17, 2013
Humanoid wrote:
<quoted text>This God being so powerful and almighty cant even appear in the flesh.....never? That's just one example of the human animals obsession with religion. Nobody has ever come back from the grave. No afterlife, zero God/Jesus sightings. Humans have had 2000+ years to perfect the "Godbot" society. All that time to brainwash, alter history, rewrite the Bible and create artifacts to create the allusion to a point it seems real to the believers..........Don't worry, one day with the advances of human technology they will explore deep space and the Bible will become obsolete.
You no speaka- da-English --aye. I said to prove your claim. Of course you are like all the other children in the clique, unable to prove your claims.
Humanoid

Kansas City, MO

#117614 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ... As with every atheist, when you get pinned you predictably vent your contempt for God, making religious assumptions that you cannot make. In your consummate arrogance you fail to see that your entire worldview is founded on your RELIGION
Creation or evolution? Both are bogus. One was created out of "fear" and the other from physical evidence...does that mean its true? A third more interesting concept/theory is more believable. It involves human comprehension on a level of extraordinary. How many galaxies exist in the cosmos? Now, 2000 years ago humans knew the world was flat and they knew a God created everything. Today that thought process is seeming less credible. Again, to many galaxies to count.....Who made God? Its absurd to think that humans are alone in the universe. Do aliens utilize human technology forms, probably not. First, humans need to stumble on the "Alien code". Even then, aliens contact may be impossible. After all aliens made all life on this floating prti dish.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117615 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ... As with every atheist, when you get pinned you predictably vent your contempt for God, making religious assumptions that you cannot make. In your consummate arrogance you fail to see that your entire worldview is founded on your RELIGION
You are still an idiot who cannot think. Find one post of mine ever where I have contempt for god. I have contempt for your pathetic idea of a god, you know the one that is demonstrably wrong, I don't have a contempt for a god in general.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117616 Feb 17, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I had not posted this yesterday due to the response awaited with bated breath to Urban Cowboy's pithy comment
It would appear that a pre-requisite to Nobel prize winning is a belief in God
See this table here for an interesting breakdown:
http://qph.cf.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3489c96b...
"A review of the Nobel awards between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religions. Most (65.4%) have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference. While separating Roman Catholic from Protestants among Christians proved difficult in some cases, available information suggests that more Protestants were involved in the scientific categories and more Catholics were involved in the Literature and Peace categories.
Atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers comprise 10.5% of total Nobel Prize winners; but in the category of Literature, these preferences rise sharply to about 35%. It can be speculated that the latter have a greater urge to be totally free of any formal religious attachments so that they can better express universal ideas.
A striking fact involving religion is the high number of Laureates of the Jewish faith - over 20% of total Nobel Prizes (138); including: 17% in Chemistry, 26% in Medicine and Physics, 40% in Economics and 11% in Peace and Literature each. The numbers are especially startling in light of the fact that only some 14 million people (0.02% of the world's population) are Jewish. By contrast, only 5 Nobel Laureates have been of the Muslim faith-0.8% of total number of Nobel prizes awarded - from a population base of about 1.2 billion (20% of the world‘s population)"
Also this---->
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent...
http://books.google.com.au/books...
See page 200 in the link above
And finally-->
http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/nobelistsgod...
What does somebody's religious beliefs have to do whether they do or don't believe the theory of evolution? In the U.S. the vast majority of believers of the theory of evolution are Christians.

World wide most Christians are not creationists. Even in the U.S. it is close to being a 50/50 split.

When it comes to scientists over 95% of them believe the theory of evolution.

You poor fool, you can't even use statistics properly.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117617 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ... As with every atheist, when you get pinned you predictably vent your contempt for God, making religious assumptions that you cannot make. In your consummate arrogance you fail to see that your entire worldview is founded on your RELIGION
There was no contempt for God in that post. Perhaps there was some contempt for you, as a literal believer in a discredited primitive cult of God which is something entirely different. Of course in your simple minded arrogance you never question whether your understanding of God through literal interpretation of primitive scripture is the only valid approach, so you think anyone criticising your literalism is "showing contempt for God". If only you could understand how ridiculous this position looks from the outside. Especially when we consider that nature, of which you believe God to be the Author, tells us such a comprehensively different story.
One way or another

United States

#117618 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still an idiot who cannot think. Find one post of mine ever where I have contempt for god. I have contempt for your pathetic idea of a god, you know the one that is demonstrably wrong, I don't have a contempt for a god in general.
You're not only a childish moron, you're a lying, childish moron.

Most all of your posts are aimed with contempt at not only people, but their god. Of course morons like you claim otherwise, its what evolution and atheism teaches.
One way or another

United States

#117619 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What does somebody's religious beliefs have to do whether they do or don't believe the theory of evolution? In the U.S. the vast majority of believers of the theory of evolution are Christians.
World wide most Christians are not creationists. Even in the U.S. it is close to being a 50/50 split.
When it comes to scientists over 95% of them believe the theory of evolution.
You poor fool, you can't even use statistics properly.
You're an idiot that believes whatever he's told, as is obvious.
Show us the questions and answers, that led to your claims and show the primer.
One way or another

United States

#117620 Feb 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no contempt for God in that post. Perhaps there was some contempt for you, as a literal believer in a discredited primitive cult of God which is something entirely different. Of course in your simple minded arrogance you never question whether your understanding of God through literal interpretation of primitive scripture is the only valid approach, so you think anyone criticising your literalism is "showing contempt for God". If only you could understand how ridiculous this position looks from the outside. Especially when we consider that nature, of which you believe God to be the Author, tells us such a comprehensively different story.
We see you're a lying moron, proving it everyday.
Humanoid

Kansas City, MO

#117621 Feb 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no contempt for God in that post. Perhaps there was some contempt for you, as a literal believer in a discredited primitive cult of God which is something entirely different. Of course in your simple minded arrogance you never question whether your understanding of God through literal interpretation of primitive scripture is the only valid approach, so you think anyone criticising your literalism is "showing contempt for God". If only you could understand how ridiculous this position looks from the outside. Especially when we consider that nature, of which you believe God to be the Author, tells us such a comprehensively different story.
The believers have been taught that without God they are the Devil's children....and that's what they believe. If you don't believe in God you are an atheist. Its nonsense based on a story and some drawings perfected over thousands of years......brainwashing on a global scale.If humans dont exterminate themselves in 2000 years, they will without question be closer to the truth of human existence. The cosmos holds all the answers, minus God.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117622 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
ENCODE found that 80% of DNA has some biological activity.

However, even the ENCODE team say that only 8-9% of the genome has been identified with useful function and that proportion is likely to top out at about 20%. A whole lot more appears to "function" but the function is useless, generally just coding RNA that then gets disassembled in a useless cycle. But feel free to keep misquoting ENCODE even after you have been told the reality 50 times. Its what creationists do, though the rest of the world calls it "lying". I expect to be hearing this lie from you and others like you for the next 20 years, like you do with everything else.

Another lie repeated from you...that "junk DNA is a prediction of evolution". It is not and never was, a prediction of evolution. If you disagree, please show me a single quote from a reputable source in the last 50 years that says junk DNA is a necessary prediction of evolution.

The TRUTH, again, is different. When junk DNA was found to exist, it could be accommodated by evolution (though it was a surprise to many evolutionists). However, it could not be accommodated by intelligent design. Its an asymmetry. Evolution can deal with either prospect, but ID cannot.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117623 Feb 17, 2013
Humanoid wrote:
<quoted text>The believers have been taught that without God they are the Devil's children....and that's what they believe. If you don't believe in God you are an atheist. Its nonsense based on a story and some drawings perfected over thousands of years......brainwashing on a global scale.If humans dont exterminate themselves in 2000 years, they will without question be closer to the truth of human existence. The cosmos holds all the answers, minus God.
You present a simple binary case - No God, or the God of Fundies.

There are 1000 other ways to consider God, and some are compatible with scientific knowledge. I do not believe in God myself, but I have no problem with those who do so long as they don't hitch it to some silly dogma that makes no sense in the light of today's understanding of the universe.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117624 Feb 17, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
We see you're a lying moron, proving it everyday.
Take the pills Jim.
One way or another

United States

#117625 Feb 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
ENCODE found that 80% of DNA has some biological activity.
However, even the ENCODE team say that only 8-9% of the genome has been identified with useful function and that proportion is likely to top out at about 20%. A whole lot more appears to "function" but the function is useless, generally just coding RNA that then gets disassembled in a useless cycle. But feel free to keep misquoting ENCODE even after you have been told the reality 50 times. Its what creationists do, though the rest of the world calls it "lying". I expect to be hearing this lie from you and others like you for the next 20 years, like you do with everything else.
Another lie repeated from you...that "junk DNA is a prediction of evolution". It is not and never was, a prediction of evolution. If you disagree, please show me a single quote from a reputable source in the last 50 years that says junk DNA is a necessary prediction of evolution.
The TRUTH, again, is different. When junk DNA was found to exist, it could be accommodated by evolution (though it was a surprise to many evolutionists). However, it could not be accommodated by intelligent design. Its an asymmetry. Evolution can deal with either prospect, but ID cannot.
Everything in our DNA has functionality or it wouldn't be there. You choose to be a one sided idiot. Nothing you parrot has value because of your one sidedness, just as the rest of your childish clique.
One way or another

United States

#117626 Feb 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Take the pills Jim.
Poor baby, you can't prove anything in evolution.
Humanoid

Kansas City, MO

#117627 Feb 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You present a simple binary case - No God, or the God of Fundies.
There are 1000 other ways to consider God, and some are compatible with scientific knowledge. I do not believe in God myself, but I have no problem with those who do so long as they don't hitch it to some silly dogma that makes no sense in the light of today's understanding of the universe.
Just one question, why are humans content with creation or evolution as the answer to human existence.So, Project Blue Book and SETI are just bogus claims. To many galaxies to count.....Doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude the obvious......human are not alone in the cosmos. Humans have had 2000 years to perfect the Bible. In another 2000 years humans will find the truth in deep space, without question. Unless, extinction comes first.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117628 Feb 17, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot that believes whatever he's told, as is obvious.
Show us the questions and answers, that led to your claims and show the primer.
I have contempt for proven idiots who cannot defend their ridiculous claims.

And tone down the jealousy a notch or two Jimbo, you are still the King of the Idiots.
One way or another

United States

#117629 Feb 17, 2013
Chimney and humanoid crying on each others shoulders for support, just like the entire childish clique. Lmao
One way or another

United States

#117630 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I have contempt for proven idiots who cannot defend their ridiculous claims.
And tone down the jealousy a notch or two Jimbo,
you are still the King of the Idiots.
So then your saying you can't show us the questions and answers, that led to your claims and show the primer.

Oh we'll, we can't expect better from morons.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117631 Feb 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no contempt for God in that post. Perhaps there was some contempt for you, as a literal believer in a discredited primitive cult of God which is something entirely different. Of course in your simple minded arrogance you never question whether your understanding of God through literal interpretation of primitive scripture is the only valid approach, so you think anyone criticising your literalism is "showing contempt for God". If only you could understand how ridiculous this position looks from the outside. Especially when we consider that nature, of which you believe God to be the Author, tells us such a comprehensively different story.
Don't presume to tell me what I believe.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117632 Feb 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another lie repeated from you...that "junk DNA is a prediction of evolution". It is not and never was, a prediction of evolution. If you disagree, please show me a single quote from a reputable source in the last 50 years that says junk DNA is a necessary prediction of evolution.
The TRUTH, again, is different. When junk DNA was found to exist, it could be accommodated by evolution (though it was a surprise to many evolutionists). However, it could not be accommodated by intelligent design. Its an asymmetry. Evolution can deal with either prospect, but ID cannot.
   For example, University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne :

"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary PREDICTION that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 

Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81

Now, please tell me how junk DNA is inconsistent with intelligent design... You cannot defend your position without bringing up religion.

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
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 8 min GTID62 185
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 25 min Kong_ 168,422
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 19,732
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Paul Porter1 141,773
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) 16 hr Chimney1 560
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 19 hr DanFromSmithville 6,157
Poll Should Topix create an Philosophy forum? (Oct '09) Jun 26 NoahLovesU 6
More from around the web