Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179619 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.

HTS

Sidney, MT

#118985 Feb 22, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, we've never shown you single examples because we've provided many. You can't even address them and dismiss anything which conflicts with your religion.
<quoted text>
Then you claim that none of these would be evidence of violation of observed nested hierarchies? How you figure?
Prove that nested hierarchies are predicted by evolution. Prove that nested hierarchies are not predicted by intelligent design.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118986 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Prove that nested hierarchies are predicted by evolution. Prove that nested hierarchies are not predicted by intelligent design.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v...
Denying nested hierarchies right there.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#118988 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Prove that nested hierarchies are predicted by evolution. Prove that nested hierarchies are not predicted by intelligent design.
Intelligent design is religious dogma masquerading as pseudo-science.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#118989 Feb 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, considering how many species we have seen go extinct over the last 100 years, there is plenty of evidence of that.
Extinction does not prove eolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118990 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Extinction does not prove eolution.
No, but DNA, nested hierarchies, ERV's, the fossil record, and thousand of other pieces of evidence do.

Meanwhile you have no evidence at all for your claims.

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

United States

#118991 Feb 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, considering how many species we have seen go extinct over the last 100 years, there is plenty of evidence of that.
Your mind is so shallow, it would only confuse you, if I explained what the reasons for extinction are from the past 100 years.
One way or another

United States

#118992 Feb 22, 2013
Google it moron.

Extinct Animals in The Last 100 Years
A glance at the list of extinct animals in the last 100 years is bound to leave you spell bound. The list features some of the prominent species, including the Barbary lion and the Western Black rhinoceros. More importantly, studies have revealed that approximately a quarter of animal species will be wiped off the planet owing to human induced climate change.

However, man cannot prove climate change is not natural. Cap and trade.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118993 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>In the first place, you haven't demonstrated how the first blue eyes came into existence. Secondly, blue eyes are no more complex than any other color. If that's the best you can come up with to prove than man evolved from a microbe, you don't have anything. Variation of eye color is determined by three different alleles in humans. Selection of pre-existing traits has nothing to do with evolution.
Blue eyes are less "complex" than other eye colors. Of course you have not properly defined "complex" yet.
Mugwump

UK

#118994 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
However, man cannot prove climate change is not natural. Cap and trade.
Can't prove outright anything in science - but can formulate theories based on known facts that are overwhelmingly the most likely explanation.

But let me guess, for you

AGW = conspiracy to get taxes

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#118995 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
More importantly, studies have revealed that approximately a quarter of animal species will be wiped off the planet owing to human induced climate change.
However, man cannot prove climate change is not natural. Cap and trade.
Man-made or not, extinction due to an organism's inability to adapt to changing environmental conditions (i.e., climate) is a factor of Natural Selection and the Theory of Evolution.
One way or another

United States

#118996 Feb 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't prove outright anything in science - but can formulate theories based on known facts that are overwhelmingly the most likely explanation.
But let me guess, for you
AGW = conspiracy to get taxes
Do tell how the gov is going to sequester all the automotive co2.
One way or another

United States

#118997 Feb 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Man-made or not, extinction due to an organism's inability to adapt to changing environmental conditions (i.e., climate) is a factor of Natural Selection and the Theory of Evolution.
Do tell us about natural selection in this context.
One way or another

United States

#118998 Feb 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Man-made or not, extinction due to an organism's inability to adapt to changing environmental conditions (i.e., climate) is a factor of Natural Selection and the Theory of Evolution.
Tell us about all the fertilizers bleaching most of the worlds coral, while the gov and media morons blame it on hotter weather.

Think before you answer, because the proof is out there.
One way or another

United States

#119000 Feb 22, 2013
As a fisherman back in the late 70's, my buddy Mike and I would fish at night many times. We could see the fish glow in the water, at least their outline.

Do you know what that was from?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119002 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Do tell us about natural selection in this context.
Google 'polar bear extinction' for just one example.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119003 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No honest scientist who objectively looked at the facts could possibly believe in molecules-to-man evolution.
And yet virtually the only people who dispute evolution are a small group of ignorant, mostly American fundamentalist Christians like you who are terrified that the stories in their precious BuyBull will seem to be discredited by the findings of science.

In SCIENCE, there is NO controversy over whether evolution occurs, and some lively debate over the mechanics of HOW it happens.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119004 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You constantly introduce irrelevant distractions such as Collins being a Christian.
Not irrelevant at all. Francis Collins is a devout Christian and also one of the leading evolutionary scientists in the planet.

Are you really so dumb that you cannot see the point? It this: the more you learn about the science, even if you hold Christian beliefs, the more OBVIOUS it is that evolution happens and the more foolish and dishonest it seems to be to DENY it.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119005 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No amount of evidence will suffice for an atheist. You demand a rabbit in the Precambrian, a mermaid, or a chimp with cactus DNA. Your worldview trumps objectivity.
We ask you for an obvious example of fossil remains that violate the nested hierarchies and the timeline of evolution as we have known it for 150 years.

If your silly Jesus Freak pseudo-science were correct, you should be able to cite HUNDREDS of examples of fossils out of place, DNA results that contradict evolution, etc.
One way or another

United States

#119006 Feb 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Google 'polar bear extinction' for just one example.
How is that a natural selection? Did the bears ask for it? Did the 4winds agree on it? What made it a natural SELECTION?

Who or what selected it?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119007 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The British paleontologist Dr. Henry Gee commented on the current evidence for evolution in the fossil record with this stunning admission:
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story–amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
*Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time. New York: Free Press, 1999, pp. 5, 32, 113-117.
See my earlier post.

You don't know Gee or his work, you haven't read his book, and you have absolutely NO IDEA what he is really saying.

You just swooped on to a "Christian" website and copy this because you found it tickled your itchy ears for more lies about science.

That's the essence of craven, totally dishonest fundamentalist Christian QUOTE-MINING.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 28 min Patrick 13,423
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 39 min replaytime 197,626
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr ChristineM 31,433
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr ChromiuMan 151,061
This is how christians fumble up the evolution ... Mon zxx838557 1
Rome Viharo debunks evolution Sun Paul Porter1 2
Evolution in action May 27 MIDutch 1
More from around the web