Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 20 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

Birkenhead, UK

#117669 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting that you had to bring up religion in your argument.
It WAS being discussed by you at the time. However if you notice in my actual arguments FOR evolution no reference to theological concepts are necessary.

I've even gone to great lengths to subsequently point that out to you yet anything you don't like, whether it mentions theism or not, you brand "atheism".
HTS wrote:
And for th last time, I never said that ID is a scientific theory.
Then why keep bringing up the concept?

I told you off the other day for doing that even though we both agreed that IDC was to be thrown out and not even mentioned anymore for being non-scientific.

Then someone mentioned evolution and you HAD to call it "atheism".
HTS wrote:
If your claim NDT to be scientific, why do you always have to bring up religion in your arguments. First you say that you never bring up religion,... Then in the same breath talk about "bad design"
Because YOU are talking about design. Evolution on its own doesn't even have to mention it. That is until the fundies come along and bang on about it all the time.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#117670 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.
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117671 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Regardless of how fashionable it might be to compare NDT to gravity, the comparison is stupid.
Actually it's not stupid. Your criticism of evolution is that evolution fails if it does not explain its respective origins. Therefore gravity fails if it does not explain the origin of mass. And the germ theory of disease fails if it does not explain abiogenesis.

That might be a surprise to the physics and medical communities respectively, though.
HTS wrote:
Making idiotic comparisons is not science. Show me the math as to how an ape could evolve into a man.
Why are you asking for math instead of biology?

Either way I've given you both.

Numerous times.

For months.

You've never bothered to address it.

All you say is "NO NO NO NO STUPID ATHEISM MEANIES!!!"

Yawn.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117672 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You have the gall to demand mechanisms? Tell me the "mechanisms" of the evolution of migratory instincts in whales... All you can say is "mutations + natural selection + millions of years = migratory instincts. Do you even know how whales migrate? Do you know what genes code for those instincts? Do you know the mechanisms of celestial navigation?
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.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#117673 Feb 17, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And so?????
Corruption after the Fall is expected and perfectly well represented in Nature
Just as the Bible says
Also see this
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_...
Except that vitamin C is still vital for life.
So if we needed it before the fall then why don't we need it now?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117674 Feb 17, 2013
Russell wrote:
Hand waving
Blithe
Smug
Hand waving
You can't help it.(shrug)
Russell wrote:
There is NO evolutionary proposal for the mechanism of the DESIGN of the ATP-ase
Bingo. Because design is your baseless claim.
Russell wrote:
Evo-tards ....like you...will retort.... as you have a multitude of time before
*....small screeching falsetto...*
"That proves nothing..
That just means that God diddit with Jewish magic...
Whinge.....whine....howl"
Give it up, the Dude
Don't need to. Since your position IS Goddidit with magic we already told you that you can't win. A stalemate would be the best you could hope for. Well, if it weren't for the fact you never address the evidence for evolution in the meantime that is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, 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

Birkenhead, 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

Birkenhead, 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

Birkenhead, 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

Williston, 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

Williston, 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

Williston, 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

Williston, 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

Williston, 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.

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) 7 min Denisova 162,054
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 min marksman11 141,291
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 25 min Chimney1 1,717
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 59 min Chimney1 19
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Chimney1 18,887
No Place For ID? 1 hr Chimney1 109
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 20 hr The Dude 896
More from around the web