Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117702 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Typical atheist BS... You cannot answer the question, so you cower behind a link.

The link answers the question. All you have to do is CLICK on it and read.

Too bad I am not an atheist. Not that your crying would bother me even if I was.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117705 Feb 17, 2013
Wiki?

Yes


Really?

Yes


Does that pass as irrefutable, high level evidence?

Yes


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

As well they should.


BUT THAT AIN'T EVOLUTION....

That is a lie. That is EXACTLY evolution. That is the DEFINITION of evolution (or one of them).

This really is NOT a numbers game
It takes only one dissenter to upset the evo-apple cart

No, it only takes one FACT to upset science. And in 150 years none has been presented.


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

Who cares.


Cant find it now and really cant be bothered

You mean you are stupid.


However, belief in God does seem related to great science....

And evolution is included in that great science. How many of those religious Noble winners won doing research related to evolution?

Atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers comprise 10.5% of total Nobel Prize winners;

That is a disproportionately high number considering their numbers. I guess they can do great science too.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117706 Feb 17, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So, Dude
150 years years later
With alleged STACKS of SCIENTIFIC evidence...
There is NO scientific consensus...
ANYWHERE!
Except the bewilderingly unshakable BELIEF that evolution DESPITE the lack of evidence...really really happened
And that's all okay for you
Because
THAT'S evolution...
The only game in town
A Divine foot in the door is inadmissible

This is all lies. You just need to look up factual information on scientific sites. There is near 100% acknowledgement of evolution in the world of science.

Remember project Steve!!!!

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/02/proje...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117708 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
But molecular dating of these imperfections date tens, hundreds of thousands of years up to millions of years old.
Why would not all these imperfections date to 6,000 years?
Why do animals have both the same and different types of imperfections?
Please explain how "molecule dating" qualifies as science and what unprovable assumptions form its foundation.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#117709 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is all lies. You just need to look up factual information on scientific sites. There is near 100% acknowledgement of evolution in the world of science.
Remember project Steve!!!!
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/02/proje...
Ackonwledgement and consensus are two different things

Project Steve does not impress at all

It was ONE man Wilberforce who stood up to the conventions of his time

He was told that his religious beliefs had no place in parliament
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#117710 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Wiki?
Yes
Really?
Yes
Does that pass as irrefutable, high level evidence?
Yes
OF COURSE all scientists will accept evolution when you define evolution as "change due to natural selection"....
As well they should.
BUT THAT AIN'T EVOLUTION....
That is a lie. That is EXACTLY evolution. That is the DEFINITION of evolution (or one of them).
This really is NOT a numbers game
It takes only one dissenter to upset the evo-apple cart
No, it only takes one FACT to upset science. And in 150 years none has been presented.
I refer to one of my previous posts regarding millions of Chinese being communist......
Who cares.
Cant find it now and really cant be bothered
You mean you are stupid.
However, belief in God does seem related to great science....
And evolution is included in that great science. How many of those religious Noble winners won doing research related to evolution?
Atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers comprise 10.5% of total Nobel Prize winners;
That is a disproportionately high number considering their numbers. I guess they can do great science too.
The facts against evolution are innumerable

Every time a fact presents itself ...
...Like an inconvenient genetically deformed child at a matchmaking tea ceremony...

It is unceremoniously hand waved away

Hidden

See here for CLEAR evidence of this...
http://creation.com/c14-dinos
One way or another

United States

#117711 Feb 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.
What has ever been made, that is for no reason?
One way or another

United States

#117712 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.
I agree.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117713 Feb 17, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts against evolution are innumerable
Every time a fact presents itself ...
...Like an inconvenient genetically deformed child at a matchmaking tea ceremony...
It is unceremoniously hand waved away
Hidden
See here for CLEAR evidence of this...
http://creation.com/c14-dinos
Rusty, did you ever pause to consider that there can be another source of radiocarbon besides the atmosphere?

The dates they were getting we from extremely low levels of C14, you can also make C14 from of nitrogen and regular carbon from various sources of radioactivity. Uranium is a common trace element in many minerals. Guess what it can do to nitrogen?

And those liars at that Institute for creatardness new it.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117714 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Rusty, did you ever pause to consider that there can be another source of radiocarbon besides the atmosphere?
The dates they were getting we from extremely low levels of C14, you can also make C14 from of nitrogen and regular carbon from various sources of radioactivity. Uranium is a common trace element in many minerals. Guess what it can do to nitrogen?
And those liars at that Institute for creatardness new it.
You'll blindly swallow anything that fits your atheistic paradigm. You have no proof of any of your claims.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117715 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is all lies. You just need to look up factual information on scientific sites. There is near 100% acknowledgement of evolution in the world of science.
Remember project Steve!!!!
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/02/proje...
In e first place, consensus is opinion, not science.
Secondly nearly 100% of scientists do not acknowledge evolution. You invariably fail to define "scientist" and "evolution"

If by "evolution" you mean that the flourishing of dark peppered moths coincided with the industrial revolution, then I wold agree. If you think nearly 100% of scientists think that man evolved from a worm, you are gravely mistaken.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117716 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You'll blindly swallow anything that fits your atheistic paradigm. You have no proof of any of your claims.
Right..

If you don't believe me you can always check for yourself. Of course you are an idiot so you have no clue how to search. Type C14 in your search bar. Even Wikipedia can explain it to you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117717 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In e first place, consensus is opinion, not science.
Secondly nearly 100% of scientists do not acknowledge evolution. You invariably fail to define "scientist" and "evolution"
If by "evolution" you mean that the flourishing of dark peppered moths coincided with the industrial revolution, then I wold agree. If you think nearly 100% of scientists think that man evolved from a worm, you are gravely mistaken.
Really? You are denying our evidence. Like I said that you would. Meanwhile you can provide no evidence of your own.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117718 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Right..
If you don't believe me you can always check for yourself. Of course you are an idiot so you have no clue how to search. Type C14 in your search bar. Even Wikipedia can explain it to you.
Nice dodge.. You swallow whatever BS is hurled at you by intellectual elites, as long as it fits your atheistic paradigm. In defense of your ridiculous claims, you arrogantly tell me to search the Wiki... because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#117719 Feb 17, 2013
Dr. Gerald Crabtree of Stanford says we're all getting dumber and dumber due to genetic mutations. This supports Dr. John Sanford's Genetic Entropy theory.

Here is the news story, the articles, and his bio:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/...

http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics//retrieve...

http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics//retrieve...

http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/cr...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117720 Feb 17, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>.
Atheists see this life as precious. Religion can numb that reverence for life by promises of an afterlife.
. Define"precious" within your atheistic paradigm, devoid of absolutes. Atheists see life as an accident... A fortuitous assemblage of molecules.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117721 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Nice dodge.. You swallow whatever BS is hurled at you by intellectual elites, as long as it fits your atheistic paradigm. In defense of your ridiculous claims, you arrogantly tell me to search the Wiki... because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Again, not a dodge. Do you even know what that word means?

An idiotic link to a creatard site was given. An explanation was offered to why they are idiots with direction of how to check the explanation. You went into instant retard mode and started slinging denial and false accusations.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117722 Feb 17, 2013
HTS if you really want help for us you need to first admit that you have been totally clueless and have acted like a jackass. A simple apology will open a world of learning to you.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#117723 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. Define"precious" within your atheistic paradigm, devoid of absolutes. Atheists see life as an accident... A fortuitous assemblage of molecules.
Nothing and nobody plus billions of years equals everything!
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117724 Feb 17, 2013
Researchers in multiple scientific fields of are abandoning Darwinism in large numbers because the theory contradicts laws of science. Biologist Dr. Egbert Leigh of the Smithsonian institute, observed that the evolutionary hypothesis is falling out of favor because it's claims cannot be reconciled with science...

"The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and anti-Darwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation."

*(Leigh, Egbert G., Jr.[Biologist, Smithsonian Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecologyt and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999, p.495).

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) 13 min IB DaMann 58,094
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 34 min Endofdays 159,306
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Eagle 12 27,275
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Dogen 1,904
News Intelligent Design Education Day Feb 19 replaytime 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Feb 19 replaytime 219,597
News Betsy DeVos' Code Words for Creationism Offshoo... Feb 16 scientia potentia... 1
More from around the web