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.

HTS

Mandan, ND

#119371 Feb 24, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG. It's people who don't understand what entropy is who need the word "order" or "disorder" to define entropy.
If I have a bottle half-filled with water, and half-filled with oil, and they're in two distinct layers, and I then shake the bottle, thereby turning the oil into little beads suspended in the water, was there greater entropy before I shook it or after I shook it?
I see that atheists have perverted axioms of physics as well,
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119372 Feb 24, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he can it is a perfectly valid argument. You are genetically different from your parents, your children are genetically different from you. That's evolution in motion.
It’s called genetic variation

Evolution it ain’t

If the job of evolution were to simply produce allelic variety from existing genes...then we could all be happy, pack up and go home

But evolution has to create multi-cellularity from single cells, then produce every living thing imaginable via mutations, selection and fixation.....and as any geneticist will tell you...

...That ain’t possible in 4.5 billion years

Oh and naturalistic processes have to also create life first...still within that time frame
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119373 Feb 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
How is "complexity" measured in an objective manner via the scientific method? Then how precisely does that demonstrate the mechanisms of an intelligent agent? Please provide direct evidence rather than use silly analogies like humans making computers or whatever.
Feel free to not bother as usual, therefore undermining your own claims.
Stone vs living cell

Cell can reproduce

Cell contains structures and components that are all interconnected, working together in coherent goal oriented processes

Stone.....

Just sits there

This gives you a basic conceptual framework to build on

It has been said that people that know why employ people that know how...

That statement implies that the knowing why is more complex than knowing how

Therefore when compared to a rabbit that only knows how

You are more complex....

......actually ......

You have no idea why.....

Bad example
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119374 Feb 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We can't deny it all day because you've given us nothing to deny. Denial would only be relevant if you had actually presented something.
You haven't.(shrug)
If it works so well for you.........
Shrug shrug shrug
Perchance SETMAR is at work here ?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then for once I would like you to validate it and demonstrate your claims using the scientific method.
Actually it ain't. It's all still there, from many pages ago and still yet to be addressed. Nothing has changed in many months.
So you claim

Same old rant

We’ve heard it all before

AND on two different thread
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119375 Feb 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No honest scientist who objectively looked at the facts could possibly believe evolution is false.
Interestingly though, it's the creationists who are forced to lie.
No

Creationists are not alone in rejecting evolution

And we never lie

Your pretense fools no one

I have provided an example of a scientist who was
outraged by the shabby science that evolution is based on

That immediately tells us about his honesty since he spoke the truth...

Sadly Rick Smalley is no longer here

But Prof McIntosh sure is...... DSc., FIMA, C. Math., FInstE, C. Eng. FInstP. Creationist combustion theorist and aerodynamicist
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119376 Feb 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
They weren't fossilized, as it is a rare process. Despite that we still have THOUSANDS upon thousands of fossils. And not one pre-Cambrian lagomorph among them.
Listen Richard

If jelly fish can leave fossilised imprints...transitional fossils certainly should appear in the fossil record
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119377 Feb 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because there are no intelligent creationists.
C’mon Richard
How intelligent does one has to be to deflate evolutionary hot air?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
More projection. Especially the bit about amorality, considering the fact that you're incapable of any kind of genuine morality and whose position is profoundly racist.
Sayeth the greatest creation bigot that flounces around this forum

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119378 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Check that statement..
Were amino acids really found in a meteorite?
Research it
Yes. And in space too.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119379 Feb 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It's in this place called the nucleus of the cell.
I see Rusty failed even grade school biology.
So what has been observed is DNA sitting in it’s God given domain...the nucleus...?

And that helps the evo-tard cause...how?

Did you not say: since we have observed DNA forming...or words to that effect...?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119380 Feb 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I see that atheists have perverted axioms of physics as well,
No, we simply understand them.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119381 Feb 24, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Complexity is a relative term. Gold has a very complex molecular structure. A million chimps throwing together various chemicals could never produce a gram of gold. So you would say that it must have been intelligently designed, correct?
However, given the right conditions, like with the chemistry of a supernova star, nature produces gold in abundance.
Could you tell us what exact conditions existed on earth 3.5 billion years ago and why those conditions could not have produced life?
It is SPECIFIED PURPOSEFUL complexity

Does gold replicate itself?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119382 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen Richard
If jelly fish can leave fossilised imprints...transitional fossils certainly should appear in the fossil record
They do.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119383 Feb 24, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Mithra would be a good starting point to begin to understand the Jesus legend.
More anaemic bleatings from the ignorant masses.....

Another “copy cat” religion slur....

Solomon was right

There is nothing new under the sun

Please see for a scholarly refutation of your claim:

http://christianthinktank.com/copycat.html

**Warning**
Not for the faint hearted
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119384 Feb 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but I am not worried about that. The bible was falsified (as a literal source) long before me. The whole fundamentalist movement is an attempt to hide what people have known for at least hundreds of years. The bible is not literal.
More to the point it demonstrates evolution to be an established and observable fact, which was my point to start with.
Thanks for finally admitting your position

It’s what I suspected....all along

Here’s what your high priest thinks of you

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119385 Feb 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>entropy is not just energy... It involves concepts of order

I quoted the full statement of the SLoT.

Ramifications of the SLoT include all physical reality as we know it.

It does not have effect on concepts which are not physical reality.

Further:
Entropy is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119386 Feb 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you did not read the link.
It shows one can be religious, accept the bible and still accept the discoveries of science. There is no REASON to have to pick sides.
http://evolutionarytheology.wordpress.com/
Er....
A BELIEF in Jesus would preclude belief in evo-rantings....

Whatever happened to the evolutionary tree of life?

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow

Jesus believed in a ‘young’ creation

He would HAVE to know as He was there

You have massacred the Bible to justify your compromise

This is precisely what brings discredit to Christianity and to the Lord

The useful idiots that have deluded themselves thinking the lie evolution has any relevance or meaning in science or life

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119387 Feb 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> I have no idea what you're talking about.

Forms that are neither alive nor dead (by the standard definition of life).

Prions Virus....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119388 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No
Creationists are not alone in rejecting evolution
And we never lie
Your pretense fools no one
I have provided an example of a scientist who was
outraged by the shabby science that evolution is based on
That immediately tells us about his honesty since he spoke the truth...
Sadly Rick Smalley is no longer here
But Prof McIntosh sure is...... DSc., FIMA, C. Math., FInstE, C. Eng. FInstP. Creationist combustion theorist and aerodynamicist
Oh my Gawd! Can you believe that his God did not strike him dead right there? If you want evidence that God does not exist, Rusty just gave it.

Creationists lie constantly. There is not one creationist site that I have ever seen that is not filled with lies.

No, you have provided evidence of a scientist that was all too human. When faced with his own mortality he started to lie for Jesus. Yes, he made idiotic statements about how "bad" the standards of science were in evolution. He could not name any specifics. Just like you cannot say what was wrong with Haeckel's drawings, and there was something wrong with them, scientifically.

Lying for Jesus is not a valid debating tool. All that happens is that people who know you are lying will point this out.

Poor Rusty, he has nothing and he knows it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119389 Feb 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I don't need to blindly post a link. I'm using scientific logic and you are refusing to address it.

You use neither science nor logic and you appear to be seriously impaired in your knowledge of both.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119390 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither is Biblical...
So there you go...
So you don't believe Genesis?
Neither can you believe a virgin birth
Nor a resurrection
Cult
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

Genesis is a metaphorical story. There are lots of religious teaching and theological points in it. Points that cannot be seen if you believe in the cult of literalism (fundamentalism).
Are the Gospels metaphorical as well?

What does Church of God say about why Jesus died?
----------

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> I do not belong to a cult
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Fundamentalism is a cult that originated in the 1850s.

All modern Christianity is an offshoot of the Pauline cult of the mid 1st century. It was a minority cult but eventually gained political power through the Romans (the body of the antichrist) and wiped out the religion of Jesus's followers.
And your brand of faith is the one true religion?

One that denies the basis for sin

So Romans 5:12-14

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—

13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

And Rom 5: 18-19

18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Are a lie?

At what point does your bible become true?

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) 4 min Into The Night 51,336
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 min marksman11 157,326
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 37 min Regolith Based Li... 24,639
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 41 min Regolith Based Li... 218,714
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr ChromiuMan 1,117
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 7 hr Dogen 460
How did reproduction start for any living thing? 7 hr Dogen 90
More from around the web