Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119239 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Simple insults are empty. You cannot logically back up any of your claims. All are easily refuted by intelligent scientists. You haven't proven anything. You need to humbly acknowledge that your worldview is ultimately founded on atheism.

Apparently the vast majority of scientists are not intelligent. Of course the average PhD in science has a higher IQ than the average MD.

Dawkins' IQ is on the high side of 180, BTW.

Apparently is is also the case that evolution is founded on atheism. Of course the founders of modern evolution Lamark, Darwin, Wallace, Bonnet, Mendel,.... were all Christians and therefore it is atheism.....

Do you yet have a clue that your assertion is idiotic?

I bet not.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119240 Feb 23, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Mithra would be a good starting point to begin to understand the Jesus legend.

True.

Jesus of legend - Mithra = Historical Jesus

Well, not exactly, but pretty close.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119241 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your paradigm relies on the unfounded belief that infinitely large numbers of possible pathways to functionality exist. What is your scientific evidence for that assumption?

This is a creationist canard. We don't need to provide evidence for YOUR straw-man.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119242 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You need to define "complex"

You need to define "complex".
LowellGuy

United States

#119243 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your challenge is transparent. You want me to give a definition and then , utilizing your twisted logic, you will attempt to apply it to inanimate objects. You don't believe absolute complexity exists. In this perverted manner, you attempt to circumvent probability barriers to evolution.
Complexity is as absolute as bigness.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119244 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your challenge is transparent. You want me to give a definition and then , utilizing your twisted logic, you will attempt to apply it to inanimate objects. You don't believe absolute complexity exists. In this perverted manner, you attempt to circumvent probability barriers to evolution.

"absolute complexity" does not exist. At best it is a philosophical construct, not a property of nature.

"complex" is an adj. An adjective is a word that describes a noun.

So, what (in an absolute sense) is "complex"?

See, it just does not make sense.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119245 Feb 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I argue science, but idiots like you have to have something negative to say.
Lol

You could not pick "science" out of a police line-up if you had the mug shot in your hand.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119246 Feb 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not know of any valid probability barriers to evolution. I do know of countless failed attempts at creationists who either could not do the math or used wrong assumptions when they set up their "proofs". Either way each and every one ever presented was fatally flawed.
The probability of a specific point mutation occurring in one generation in mammals is one in two billion. That number alone precludes the possibility of any directional evolution.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119247 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
"absolute complexity" does not exist. At best it is a philosophical construct, not a property of nature.
"complex" is an adj. An adjective is a word that describes a noun.
So, what (in an absolute sense) is "complex"?
See, it just does not make sense.
iIn the deluded world of atheism, there are no absolutes... No love, no beauty, no good or evil, no purpose...nothing
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119248 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Projection.
Lets review again.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
However, I am the one that DOES have the evidence. It is evidence that:
Has been accumulated by MILLIONS of scientists.
Has withstood 150 years of the scientific method.
- It is observable
- It is testable
- It is falsifiable (but has never been falsified)
- It includes experiments and observations that are repeatable
- has repeated the experiments and observations.
- has been peer reviewed.
- has advanced science.
- has made predictions (which have been successful)
Has been observed in nature
Is based on over a BILLION fossils.
Is based on over 10 TRILLION pieces of data.
Has multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science (the holy grail of science).
evolution on Google Scholar gets about 3,780,000 results.
on pubmed it gets 336447 results.
If you understood at all how science works you would understand that any major errors in a theory gets flushed out quickly when that much research is done.
But now you will bash scientists by calling them names or state they are all biased and will allude to a vast global cabal of evolutionism (without having the guts to come out and state it plainly).
go ahead, get on with it.
It's obvious from your posts that you are a mindless "go-with-the-flow" sheep who can't think for himself. Regardless of how many search results google gets, or your ten trillion pieces of data that you naively think supports your religion, you cannot logically defend a single tenet of Darwinism without ranting about religion and/or hurling immature insults.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119249 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>iIn the deluded world of atheism, there are no absolutes... No love, no beauty, no good or evil, no purpose...nothing
Says a lying Christiot, here's what an Atheist would say;

"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." - Carl Sagan

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119250 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It's obvious from your posts that you are a mindless "go-with-the-flow" sheep who can't think for himself. Regardless of how many search results google gets, or your ten trillion pieces of data that you naively think supports your religion, you cannot logically defend a single tenet of Darwinism without ranting about religion and/or hurling immature insults.
Tens of thousands of Christian clergy say that you are wrong about evolution and there is no good reason not to accept it as fact. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119251 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You could not pick "science" out of a police line-up if you had the mug shot in your hand.
The more I read Edgar's posts the more I suspect urban is right - he isn't wilfully stupid - but stupidly willfull.

UC has always maintained that jimbo/Edgar is just a windup and doesn't believe any of his nonsense - maybe UC is right
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119252 Feb 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Tens of thousands of Christian clergy say that you are wrong about evolution and there is no good reason not to accept it as fact. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm interested in science, not vain appeals to authority or references to your religious beliefs.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119253 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The probability of a specific point mutation occurring in one generation in mammals is one in two billion. That number alone precludes the possibility of any directional evolution.
How so? It only precludes evolution if there is a set species you are trying to evolve. That is not the case. That is the sort of foolish mistake that creatards make time after time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119254 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>iIn the deluded world of atheism, there are no absolutes... No love, no beauty, no good or evil, no purpose...nothing
You should not speak about a subject that you are 100% clueless about.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#119255 Feb 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I argue science, but idiots like you have to have something negative to say.
Lol
I have yet to see you posit anything scientific.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#119256 Feb 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How so? It only precludes evolution if there is a set species you are trying to evolve. That is not the case. That is the sort of foolish mistake that creatards make time after time.
I knew you'd say something like that. Convergence proves you are wrong. Think about it.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119257 Feb 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to see you posit anything scientific.
Or even rational

Or even anything he is willing to discuss in an adult manner.

I do suspect he is a Poe - no one can be this stupid - and also as he avoids questions that highlight his nonsense approach to 'science' he obviously has the faculties to make that judgement.
One way or another

United States

#119258 Feb 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Does the class clown think he has a valid "odds proof" that evolution is impossible?
Let's see it Jimbo.
A swing and a miss from the Evo moron.

Gosh, your childish stupidity isn't getting any better. Keep working on it moron.

Talking your childish language is tedious and goes nowhere, but hey, it seems to be all you have.

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) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 80,034
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Dogen 163,784
News Intelligent design (Jul '15) Sat Dogen 571
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sat ChromiuMan 222,780
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Fri River Tam 32,582
What's your religion? Fri Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
More from around the web