Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179697 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

#117675 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The junk DNA paradigm has crashed, and the DarwinBots on this forum are simply ignoring scientific fact. The collapse of junk DNA is a fatal blow to NDT. Most geneticists now believe that 100% of human DNA is functional. In the 1970's and 1980's it was preached on university campuses that 98% of DNA was junk. This was widely claimed to be predicted by NDT.
What's so stupid is that it was always illogical to assume that non-coding = non-functional. Since atheists believe that DNA is everything (such as gender identity, alcoholism, etc.), it is ridiculous to assume that 98% of a genetic code is worthless.
Since we've addressed your lies so many times over now while you in turn fail to deal with rebuttals, the only rational conclusion is that you're just another typical dishonest fundie liar for Jesus.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117676 Feb 17, 2013
Russell wrote:
At least CHECK what you hurriedly provide as scathing irrefutable evidence for animalutionism
At least check they were saying what you pretend they were saying. Because it turns out they still think evolution was responsible while you apparently know more than them, even though they were using evolutionary science you reject and evidence is irrelevant to anyone who believes Goddidit with magic anyway.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117677 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not interested in the truth... only in the justification of your amoral worldview.
I's common knowledge that the junk DNA paradigm has crashed.
In reference to the collapse of the junk DNA paradigm, Evolutionist Dr. John Mattick, director for the Institute of Molecular Bioscience (Queensland, Australia), wrote,
"The failure to recognize the full implications of this--particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information... may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
*Mattick, J. Cited in: Gibs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk", Scientific American, 289 (5): 26-33, November, 2003; pp.29-30
I could site many references, but I know you're not interested in anything that threatens your religion.
He's an evolutionist you say? And still an evolutionist? So it's just another example of evolutionary biologists debating over the particulars of HOW evolution occurred (which is normal in any scientific theory) rather than IF it occurred or not?

Taking scientists out of context in this way is dishonest.

And you did this 6 months ago.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#117678 Feb 17, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be dumb.
A none functioning gene for vitamin C disproves a designer as a designer would either have protected it or removed it completely, not left a damaged copy.
Only if it was a smart designer. It does not falsify the possibility of a dumb designer.

HTS just can't make up his mind whether the designer was smart or dumb.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117679 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not interested in the truth... only in the justification of your amoral worldview.
I's common knowledge that the junk DNA paradigm has crashed.
In reference to the collapse of the junk DNA paradigm, Evolutionist Dr. John Mattick, director for the Institute of Molecular Bioscience (Queensland, Australia), wrote,
"The failure to recognize the full implications of this--particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information... may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
*Mattick, J. Cited in: Gibs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk", Scientific American, 289 (5): 26-33, November, 2003; pp.29-30
I could site many references, but I know you're not interested in anything that threatens your religion.
First, atheists are far more moral than Christians. We don't need a book written by bronze age goat humpers to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Also prisons are underpopulated by atheists as a percentage of society overall and rife with Christians. It seems that they took the wrong part of your book to heart.

And you still do not know how to link? Your quotes don't count for shit if you cannot link your source.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117680 Feb 17, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Bring the list of scientists names with the questions they were asked and their answers. Lmao you got nothin but deceit.

Remember there are more scientists name 'Steve' than there are creation supporters.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117681 Feb 17, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Bring the list of scientists names with the questions they were asked and their answers. Lmao you got nothin but deceit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...

LOL. You got nothin' but deceit. OCD Liar.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117682 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He's an evolutionist you say? And still an evolutionist? So it's just another example of evolutionary biologists debating over the particulars of HOW evolution occurred (which is normal in any scientific theory) rather than IF it occurred or not?
Taking scientists out of context in this way is dishonest.
And you did this 6 months ago.
If you would care to frame that statement in any other context, be my guest. You have been nailed... Why don't you just admit it?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117683 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
First, atheists are far more moral than Christians. We don't need a book written by bronze age goat humpers to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Also prisons are underpopulated by atheists as a percentage of society overall and rife with Christians. It seems that they took the wrong part of your book to heart.
And you still do not know how to link? Your quotes don't count for shit if you cannot link your source.
In the world of atheism, no morality exists. If you care to talk about morality, you. An start by explaining how mutations and natural selection ell us that it's wrong to kill someone...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117684 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying we have mechanisms? But mechanisms are not enough but we also have to provide a step-by-step, organism-by-organism, mutation-by-mutation account of the entire history of life for the past 4 billion years?
While you in the meantime have to provide jack shite.
Hypocrisy thy name is fundie.
You always throw a hissy fit every time you've been nailed to the wall.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117685 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we can't tell if they're false or not, because you're not capable of even demonstrating it exists. So you're right, it's not a scientific argument. Because there's no such thing as scientific arguments against non-falsifiable concepts.
Duh.
Dude, you've just conceded defeat. You've finally acknowledged that imperfections is not a scientific argument. The imperfections argument if the backbone of almost all evidence for evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117686 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In the world of atheism, no morality exists. If you care to talk about morality, you. An start by explaining how mutations and natural selection ell us that it's wrong to kill someone...
Wrong, no false morality exists.

Why do you insist on saying stupid things HTS?

It seems that you trailed off at the end of your post, as if your idiocy was finally catching up to you.

Would you care to finish that thought?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117687 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...
LOL. You got nothin' but deceit. OCD Liar.
Typical atheist BS... You cannot answer the question, so you cower behind a link.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117688 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You always throw a hissy fit every time you've been nailed to the wall.
HTS, you have never nailed anyone to the wall.

Why do these creatards ever think that they have made a valid point.

It is time to face reality. It is still illegal to teach creation in the schools. It is perfectly legal to teach evolution. That means as things stand we have won. For you to win you have to show how creation is backed up by science. It isn't.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117689 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He's an evolutionist you say? And still an evolutionist? So it's just another example of evolutionary biologists debating over the particulars of HOW evolution occurred (which is normal in any scientific theory) rather than IF it occurred or not?
o.
He's one of the few evolutionists who has a level of intellectual honesty.

Here's a rare example of an intellectually honest atheist.. Dr. George Wald, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1967:

“I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation leading to evolution."

*George Wald, "Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life" (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. 187.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117690 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Don't presume to tell me what I believe.

He just spoke the truth. You fundies are so afraid of science, so afraid of reality.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117691 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
   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.

Did you not understand the quote you posted? Dr. Coyne just explained it above.

I am confused that you are confused.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117692 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The recycled "imperfections" argument is reliant on false assumptions of an intelligent creator and is therefore not a scientific argument.

So an intelligent creator is a false assumption and therefore not a scientific argument.

I could not have said it better.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#117693 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In the world of atheism, no morality exists. If you care to talk about morality, you. An start by explaining how mutations and natural selection ell us that it's wrong to kill someone...
Why should they ?

Oh and when are you going to back up your claim that most geneticists think DNA is 100% functional?

Oh of course, sorry I forgot creationist 101 says you have to lie , then ignore the fact.

Great world view you have going on there
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#117694 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...
LOL. You got nothin' but deceit. OCD Liar.
Wiki?

Really?

Does that pass as irrefutable, high level evidence?

OF COURSE all scientists will accept evolution when you define evolution as "change due to natural selection"....

BUT THAT AIN'T EVOLUTION....

This really is NOT a numbers game

It takes only one dissenter to upset the evo-apple cart

I refer to one of my previous posts regarding millions of Chinese being communist......

Cant find it now and really cant be bothered

However, belief in God does seem related to great science

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

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) 1 min syamsu 209,528
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 min Chimney1 152,163
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 15 min Amused 20,237
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Aura Mytha 45,439
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sun Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sat One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sat One way or another 4
More from around the web