Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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

Sarasota, FL

#118617 Feb 21, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I kind of screwed up the joke.
I **SHOULD** have said an ITALIAN suppository.
Oh gosh, maybe he'll spit on his screen again. Moronic children like you do that, right.

The science in America, according to these school children.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118618 Feb 21, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, can't prove that invisible flying pink elephants with magic wands who just want to have fun don't control the universe. More information is needed.
Again, you can't defend evolution without referencing religion. Your predictable posts validate everything I'm saying.
Mugwump

London, UK

#118619 Feb 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Way ta go moron, you're too stupid to discuss science, so just blame religion, you children do need attention.
Still ignoring any responses jimbo - let me try mine again - it goes towards you claim that all 'new' thinking is worthy.
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
The colour green is more intelligent than the colour red.

This is new thinking

Do you agree, given my above statement , that this is a worthy thing to say?

If not can you present any arguments against my new thinking?
Why do you never respond rationally to anything, it is almost as if you know you don't have the mental faculties to discuss subjects in an adult manner.

Or do.you AGREE that the colour green is more intelligent than the colour red.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118620 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Like it or not, the primary evidences presented in defense of evolution are ultimately attempted disproofs of God.
You just made an unsupported statement.

So was that lying bullshit or just hyperbole?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118621 Feb 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of billions of fossils, science claims the possibility of two transitional fossils, with no other intermediate forms.
Wow, that's like a billion ta two. Hmm, that's what the American system teaches. The gov loves you morons.
What are you trying to claim here Jimbo?

As usual, I am sure that you have no clue.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118622 Feb 21, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
If I guessing correctly your argument Re: RLN (which also applies to other examples of (un)intelligent design , such as the eye, pelvis in female humans etc) is that we can't call it badly designed as we cannot know god's mechanisms.
While this is true - it is also useless as it acts as a logic 'get out of jail free card'
However it does beg the question - why couldn't evolution be gods method of creating the diversity we observe in life?
Now, I have asked this before - with no response , wanna give it another go?
No of course you don't - better to just ignore it - just like I asked you to back up your claims about HIV/AIDS - actually that was more a request to refute the responses I gave to your litany of lunacy on the subject.
And this is all fundies can do isn't it?
The imperfections argument is founded on religious beliefs and is therefore invalid in a scientific discussion. You cannot assume any attributes of an intelligent designer or how a creative process would have been conducted, because the process is unknown.
I agree with you that a God could have used evolution. If that were true, the fundamental assumption of Darwinism (ie, no intelligent design exists) would be refuted. Also, I see no evidence of gradualistic evolution in the fossil record. If evolution produced the 7-10 million species of life on earth, billions of transitional forms should exist in the fossil record, not one or two debatable, subjectively evaluated examples. Why is it that there are over 1,000 fossils of flying reptiles, all fully capable of powered flight, spanning a geologic time period of 160 million years... and no transitional forms are identified?
One way or another

United States

#118623 Feb 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is an event, it had to happen. You try to ignore the how and think saying who is actually and answer to all the questions, when your who just complicates the entire matter by adding a lot more questions. Life had to come from non-living matter, because it's made up of non-living matter. Carbon is not alive, neither is oxygen or hydrogen, they only form life.
You have proof, you have the American school system to brainwash you though.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118624 Feb 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is an event, it had to happen. You try to ignore the how and think saying who is actually and answer to all the questions, when your who just complicates the entire matter by adding a lot more questions. Life had to come from non-living matter, because it's made up of non-living matter. Carbon is not alive, neither is oxygen or hydrogen, they only form life.
Abiogenesis "had to happen" only in the mind of an atheist. You cannot assume that because life exists, it evolved without God.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118625 Feb 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You just made an unsupported statement.
So was that lying bullshit or just hyperbole?
OK, you think I'm lying... Let's take some of the commonly cited evidences for evolution...
1. Homology
2. Imperfections of nature
3. Embryology

Try to defend the evidence for evolution in these lines of evidence without referencing religion.
One way or another

United States

#118626 Feb 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You just made an unsupported statement.
So was that lying bullshit or just hyperbole?
You're an idiot and willing moron, taught by a fully corrupt school system in America. You just don't know you're a disrespectful, deceitful, copy and paste child, that never grew up and never cared. You just need your childish attention.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118627 Feb 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of billions of fossils, science claims the possibility of two transitional fossils, with no other intermediate forms.
Wow, that's like a billion ta two. Hmm, that's what the American system teaches. The gov loves you morons.
Every time I think "humanity can't be that stupid" I read one of your posts and take it back. So you never went to school, good to know, you have no education at all then. Now I understand why you have to be so against reality, all the actually educated and intelligent people make you feel useless and small.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118628 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Again, you can't defend evolution without referencing religion. Your predictable posts validate everything I'm saying.
No, that has nothing to do with evolution's validity, but it demonstrates actual logic, something you do not utilize.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118629 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So your entire paradigm rests on the hope that most of DNA is useless, despite the fact that many geneticists believe that 100% of the human genome is functional. At what point will you be convinced of the fallacy of evolution?
30% functionality? 50%? 90%?
You have not documented how to determine a neutral mutation. Speculation is not science. I realize that it can't be measured as deleterious. How do you know that after many generations the mistakes will add up? What principle of mathematics are you relying on to suggest that large numbers of mistakes in replication can add up to something beneficial?
No, that is not what I said, even though it is true.

Where is your evidence that many geneticists believe that the genome is 100% functional? The article that I linked earlier that described the work on project ENCODE said that they thought maybe 10% was functional and possibly even as much as 20%. Twenty percent is a long long way from 100%. What noncreatard geneticist has such a belief?

We know that the errors don't add up by studying faster reproducing species. If they don't add up in them it is safe to assume they don't add up in us. Remember YOU are the one making a positive claim. It is up to you to provide evidence that supports your view. You have none. Even a little evidence defeats no evidence.

I may have to repeat that a few thousand times to you.

Let me do it one more time:

Even a little evidence defeats no evidence.
One way or another

United States

#118630 Feb 21, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Still ignoring any responses jimbo - let me try mine again - it goes towards you claim that all 'new' thinking is worthy.
<quoted text>
Why do you never respond rationally to anything, it is almost as if you know you don't have the mental faculties to discuss subjects in an adult manner.
Or do.you AGREE that the colour green is more intelligent than the colour red.
Aww, the poodle school system of American dominance has most other school systems playing catch up.

No offense to you Russell, as you prove to think for yourself.

You normal childish deceit is showing. I never said, all 'new' thinking is worthy.

Why don't you tell your lies to those just like you. I'm sure they would say,-- hey, your school system is just like America's. your a good poodle.
Mugwump

London, UK

#118631 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you that a God could have used evolution. If that were true, the fundamental assumption of Darwinism (ie, no intelligent design exists) would be refuted.
Read this back to yourself
One way or another

United States

#118632 Feb 21, 2013
Without the utmost truth and proof, there can be no learning.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#118633 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Back up your claims with scientific logic... Don't just state them.
YOU haven't proven a designer exists, even though you desperately want him to.

THAT is my scientific evidence.

What do you have? Nothing, I bet!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#118634 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So, if I found an ancient statue and I couldn't identify he designer... That would prove hat no intelligent being created it?
If there is no evidence that there was any being in proximity that could have designed it, then yes, most likely it would be a natural formation. Kinda like the NH "Old Man in the mountain"
One way or another

United States

#118635 Feb 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that has nothing to do with evolution's validity, but it demonstrates actual logic, something you do not utilize.
Good dogie, bark doggie, bark.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#118636 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic homology proves nothing. The recycled chromosome 2 argument has been soundly debunked. There is no genetic evidence whatsoever of ape-human relatedness.
Bull crap!! ERV's do that quite nicely.

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 hr red and right 171,795
evolution is correct. prove me wrong 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 6
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Marksman11 142,581
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 4 hr Zog Has-fallen 35
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Strel 20,589
News Intelligent design 10 hr Paul Porter1 3
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 21 hr Paul Porter1 266
More from around the web