Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 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.

Elohim

Branford, CT

#120022 Feb 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Chapter and verse please.
Luke 14:25-26
25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple."

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#120023 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Radiometric carbon 14 dating is accurate only in dry climates and only within a range of around 3,500 years. You have no linearity studies to validate dates beyond that, so what you have is unfounded speculation. Do you know what the level of carbon-14 was in the atmosphere 18,000 years ago? You haven't the slightest idea, so you are guessing. Radiometric carbon-14 dating has been proven unreliable when conducted outside of strict parameters. It has been documented that the ocean surrounding Antarctica contains low levels of Carbon-14. Bones of living penguins in the area have been radiometrically dated and have been assigned dates of 8,000 years.*. The shells of some living marine mollusks have been dated to 23,000 years.* Shells of living snails have been carbon dated at 27,000 years.*
* Creation Seminar, Parts #4-6, http://creationrevolution.com/2011/04/wrong-a...
*Science, Volume 143, 1963, pg. 633-637
* Science, Volume 224, 1984, pg. 58-61
Have you ever heard of genetic variability? Cro Magnon was a human... Nothing more or less. What you have is a lot of BS clothed in the garb of science.
Read my post you moron.

Yes I have, have you or are you juts relying on what you have been told.

No RC dating has not been proven unreliable, what has happened is that the discovery institute and creation com and others with a goddidit agenda have bad mouthed it because they have nothing to counter it with. That article is written by a christian-apologetics ministry with an agenda, you don’t actually believe it’s an accurate representation of fact do you?

RCD is usually accurate to within 1% and combined with the other dating methods (that you seem to have IGNORED for dome strange reason) blows your pathetic objections out of the water.

Honey, you are talking about my hobby subject. I spend a month to six weeks every year researching Cro-Magnon man in their environment to the extent that I have spent a small fortune purchasing a house nearby that I can use as a base so don’t try and BS me with your creation crap.

Have you ever heard of evolution? Guess what, evolution happens because of genetic variability, genetic mutation and environmental necessity. Cro Magnon man were human, they are classified as human and yet show markedly different skeletal structure to modern humans. Modern humans have evolved.

It really does not matter what you believe (without evidence), it’s what is proven to be FACT is what counts. You are welcome to delude yourself as much as you want but do not call me a liar just because you cannot accept FACT.

Do you really think I am as stupid as you?
Elohim

Branford, CT

#120024 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Excellent comment. Unfortunately, you're talking to spiritual midgets who have no desire for virtue or truth.
LMAO! With you and your ilk the "truth" begins and ends in a book of 6000 year old myths.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120025 Feb 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Point taken. It is kinda fun on a boring day to wind him up though.
<quoted text>
Agreed.

And winding him up does not take a lot of effort. One factual statement and he is off to the races.

I generally ignore him anymore, but sometimes can't resist taking a potshot or two at him now and again.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120026 Feb 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ditto my last post.
In any case, evolution does not predict the smooth continuum that creationists insist it does. Even back to Darwin that was not the case. In other words, once again you keep arguing against straw men, not the ACTUAL theory of evolution.
Evolutionary change is rapid when the environment is unstable, and less so when it is stable. Once a species is optimised to a particular environment, its unlikely to keep rapidly changing until something in the environment changes.
I've read Origin of Species. Darwin saw inconsistencies in the fossil record with what he knew would be predicted by gradualism. Because of this, he gave a long drawn out special pleading argument that the fossil record was consistent with gradualism. Biologists do the same thing today. This is not making a scientific prediction... it is accomodation of a theory through rationalization with the observed facts of nature. The theory of evolution has never been able to predict anything. Your entire commen t is nothing but raw conjecture.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#120027 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Radiometric carbon 14 dating is accurate only in dry climates and only within a range of around 3,500 years. You have no linearity studies to validate dates beyond that, so what you have is unfounded speculation. Do you know what the level of carbon-14 was in the atmosphere 18,000 years ago? You haven't the slightest idea, so you are guessing. Radiometric carbon-14 dating has been proven unreliable when conducted outside of strict parameters. It has been documented that the ocean surrounding Antarctica contains low levels of Carbon-14. Bones of living penguins in the area have been radiometrically dated and have been assigned dates of 8,000 years.*. The shells of some living marine mollusks have been dated to 23,000 years.* Shells of living snails have been carbon dated at 27,000 years.*
* Creation Seminar, Parts #4-6, http://creationrevolution.com/2011/04/wrong-a...
*Science, Volume 143, 1963, pg. 633-637
* Science, Volume 224, 1984, pg. 58-61
Have you ever heard of genetic variability? Cro Magnon was a human... Nothing more or less. What you have is a lot of BS clothed in the garb of science.
The first reference is from a group that is deliberately anti-science. For the other two, do you know WHY the dates come off so old? It has to do with the ocean. But, I'm sure you'd rather assume the tests faulty than learn how the tests work and what can cause false dates. After all, why learn when you already know everything?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#120028 Feb 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you show this to me please. It seems you have a high confidence level regarding the macro-evolutionary event of changing from the 1 bone ear/3 bone jaw to the 3 bone mammal ear/1 bone jaw form. What specifically are the species in question and how do they compare? What about all the other changes from reptile to mammal? How did they manage to hear or eat or bite while this transition was taking place over such a long time? Let's drill down to the specifics and see what's really there.
So, now you're going to pretend this hasn't been presented MULTIPLE TIMES ALREADY. Dishonest. Do you ever tire of lying to yourself and others?
Elohim

Branford, CT

#120029 Feb 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Ya know how our society was built on manufacturing and how that supported the huge increases for government workers, their perks, retirements and healthcare?
Well, since most of our manufacturing jobs were sent overseas in this one world government and how many more millions of manufacturing jobs are now automated? Well, that means all those people that paid taxes with those Manu jobs don't pay those taxes anymore.
That means, we can't afford those gov salaries perks, healthcare and retirements. However, gov now blames all the problems on the programs for those that truly need help, that gov created, while the fully corrupt congress stole all the trillions in social security money, while congress now takes bribes as always, to enriched the huge corporations and their investors that keep electing and protecting them. The stock market is the same type of scheme, causing the least of us to pay higher prices to investors, bankers and corporations, that manipulate the markets, always demanding more profits,
While labor is the ONLY thing that makes wealth.
You are stealing everything from the laborers and then you blame the laborers for not being parasites like you.
Those entities are destroying America
It's the Freemasons!!
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120030 Feb 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Read my post you moron.
Yes I have, have you or are you juts relying on what you have been told.
No RC dating has not been proven unreliable, what has happened is that the discovery institute and creation com and others with a goddidit agenda have bad mouthed it because they have nothing to counter it with. That article is written by a christian-apologetics ministry with an agenda, you don’t actually believe it’s an accurate representation of fact do you?
RCD is usually accurate to within 1% and combined with the other dating methods (that you seem to have IGNORED for dome strange reason) blows your pathetic objections out of the water.
Honey, you are talking about my hobby subject. I spend a month to six weeks every year researching Cro-Magnon man in their environment to the extent that I have spent a small fortune purchasing a house nearby that I can use as a base so don’t try and BS me with your creation crap.
Have you ever heard of evolution? Guess what, evolution happens because of genetic variability, genetic mutation and environmental necessity. Cro Magnon man were human, they are classified as human and yet show markedly different skeletal structure to modern humans. Modern humans have evolved.
It really does not matter what you believe (without evidence), it’s what is proven to be FACT is what counts. You are welcome to delude yourself as much as you want but do not call me a liar just because you cannot accept FACT.
Do you really think I am as stupid as you?
I present scientific evidence that debunks your claims, and you attempt to dismiss it with one broad sweep, contending that it's unreliable because it was written by Christians. I've heard that ploy before. I rebut your stories with scientific evidence, and you attempt to counter my claims with religious bigotry. How about actually explaining the discordant dates? And if you think radiometric carbon-14 dating is legitimate, give me a logical answer as to why it should be believed for time periods when no linearity studies can be made.

I regret to inform you that your hobby is worthless. You have no scientific evidence whatsoever that Cro Magnon was anything more or less than a modern human. If you do, let's see the evidence.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#120031 Feb 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The butterfly's ability to navigate to a precise location thousands of miles distant never having been there is innate, i.e., this is hard-wired into the butterfly. Evolution has no answer; this was obviously designed from the beginning.
So the point is this: How did these innate, hard-wired abilities originate?
There are many examples of this in nature, i.e, salamander, sockeye salmon, i.e., the list is very long. Not just migration but beneficial symbiotic relationships, defense, disguise, deception, language, etc. Evolution provides no explanation for these behaviors.
First what makes you think it’s precise?
What is the mechanism to guide the behaviour?
Is it magnetic?
Is it aromatic
Is it evolutional?
Is it hereditary?
Is it genetic?
Is it learned?

You claim goddidit but you do not know so you make the guess that suites your belief

Just because evolution does not have an answer does not mean you take the easy way of – doh this is something we are too stupid to understand so god must have done it – No it means that there is a question that needs answering. And like many such questions over time it will possibly (but not definitely) be answered by science

Actually evolution provides answers for several of the points you raised, defence, disguise, deception and language are al evolutionary necessities and different species evolve to use different methods depending on environmental requirements.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120032 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that opinions are not evidence... Including yours. Your disbelief in God doesn't mean that evolutiondidit with magic through an explosion... You have no science.

This is dishonest on a number of levels. For one you have never lent any scientific support to your opinion. For another science (including evolution, cosmology, theoretical physics, theoretical astrophysics, astronomy, genetics, biology, physics, biochemistry, paleontology,......... works off of evidence and not belief. That is not to say that scientists do not have beliefs, only that they differ and the scientific method eliminates unsupported ones from contention.

You are welcome to your beliefs, but they are not scientific.

For myself, I will return to my contemplation of the building blocks of the universe (invisible purple ping-pong balls).

Lastly, and perhaps most important, acceptance of science does not preclude a belief in God. Many Christians can be found among the disciplines listed above. Christians who acknowledge the expanding universe as well as evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120033 Feb 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
... you also leave open the possibility of nearly universal incompetence among nearly the entire scientific community, with only fundamentalist Christian creationists being the only ones capable of scientific integrity and competence.
Nice summary statement of the creationist agenda.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120034 Feb 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The first reference is from a group that is deliberately anti-science. For the other two, do you know WHY the dates come off so old? It has to do with the ocean. But, I'm sure you'd rather assume the tests faulty than learn how the tests work and what can cause false dates. After all, why learn when you already know everything?
Questioning a theory is not "anti-science". When you find a fossil in a damp cave, you no scientific reason to conclude that no flooding or leaching of carbon-14 didn't occur during the previous 18,000 years resulting in spurious dates. You have no justification in assuming what the levels of atmospheric carbon-14 were 18,000 years ago. Worse of all, you have no linearity studies to prove that any of those extrapolations are valid. Raw speculation is not science.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120035 Feb 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is dishonest on a number of levels. For one you have never lent any scientific support to your opinion. For another science (including evolution, cosmology, theoretical physics, theoretical astrophysics, astronomy, genetics, biology, physics, biochemistry, paleontology,......... works off of evidence and not belief. That is not to say that scientists do not have beliefs, only that they differ and the scientific method eliminates unsupported ones from contention.
You are welcome to your beliefs, but they are not scientific.
For myself, I will return to my contemplation of the building blocks of the universe (invisible purple ping-pong balls).
Lastly, and perhaps most important, acceptance of science does not preclude a belief in God. Many Christians can be found among the disciplines listed above. Christians who acknowledge the expanding universe as well as evolution.
Why do you categorically insist that no evidence for God exists, and then in the same breath acknowledge that many scientists believe in God?

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#120036 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your opinion is refuted by intelligent scientists including geologists, physicists and biologists. This is not a popularity contest. You cannot present scientific evidence to prove your claims. You constantly have to appeal to authority and take stabs at religious beliefs to attempt to justify what you consider to be a scientific theory. That demonstrates that you have nothing.
And who ever suggested that intelligent design required "magic"?
And what's this BS about relativity proving the book of Revelation to be false? Since when are you an expert on ancient scripture?
Either show a list of those intelligent scientists or don’t lie. I am not interested in appealing to you.

Well considering that there is no way it can happen by ID and there can be no authority to guide ID because such authority contravenes the laws of this universe, i.e., you exist therefore an omnipotent god cannot exist then ID can not happen unless by magic

No BS, work it out

Here is a hint.

Revelation tells us that the babble god is omnipotent. The definition of omnipotent is of infinite energy. E=MC^2 tells us that if matter exists then energy cannot be infinite (if it ever was)

So either the babble is wrong or Einstein was wrong. Now when we consider that Einstein’s equations are used throughouyt science and have helped power the modern world including your ability to post comments on the internet and the babble has be proven time and time again to be false then I know where my money lies.

As to being an expert on ancient scripture, I can more or less guarantee I am more an expert on it than you.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120037 Feb 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I said CONFIRMED liars. However, you just described exactly what you do, though I suppose you also leave open the possibility of nearly universal incompetence among nearly the entire scientific community, with only fundamentalist Christian creationists being the only ones capable of scientific integrity and competence.
So, I take it that all Christians are incompetent and dishonest, and all atheists are devoted solely to the pursuit of truth, unfettered by a predetermined worldview? Is that your warped paradigm?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120038 Feb 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Either show a list of those intelligent scientists or don’t lie. I am not interested in appealing to you.
Well considering that there is no way it can happen by ID and there can be no authority to guide ID because such authority contravenes the laws of this universe, i.e., you exist therefore an omnipotent god cannot exist then ID can not happen unless by magic
No BS, work it out
Here is a hint.
Revelation tells us that the babble god is omnipotent. The definition of omnipotent is of infinite energy. E=MC^2 tells us that if matter exists then energy cannot be infinite (if it ever was)
So either the babble is wrong or Einstein was wrong. Now when we consider that Einstein’s equations are used throughouyt science and have helped power the modern world including your ability to post comments on the internet and the babble has be proven time and time again to be false then I know where my money lies.
As to being an expert on ancient scripture, I can more or less guarantee I am more an expert on it than you.
I see you've run out of arguments to justify what you consider to be science. As I've said before dozens of times on this thread, atheists cannot scientifically defend anything. They always have to resort to bigoted statements founded on their atheistic opinions as to what attributes an intelligent creator would possess.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#120039 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I present scientific evidence that debunks your claims, and you attempt to dismiss it with one broad sweep, contending that it's unreliable because it was written by Christians. I've heard that ploy before. I rebut your stories with scientific evidence, and you attempt to counter my claims with religious bigotry. How about actually explaining the discordant dates? And if you think radiometric carbon-14 dating is legitimate, give me a logical answer as to why it should be believed for time periods when no linearity studies can be made.
I regret to inform you that your hobby is worthless. You have no scientific evidence whatsoever that Cro Magnon was anything more or less than a modern human. If you do, let's see the evidence.
No you don’t you present your personal opinion and hoik it as scientific evidence with no proof, no peer review, no publication.

That is because it can so easily be dismissed and agin you present no scientific evidence. All you do is lies for your god, does it make you hard being such a liar for you belief, is masturbation that much easier when you have lied and mocked someone based on nothing more that deliberate ignorance?

You really would not know scientific evidence if it sat on your face and farted

Because it is backed up by the other dating me6thods that you choose to ignore because you have no argument for them

I don’t give a damn what you think of my hobby, it is certainly less worthless than a book of lies and make believe based on a genocidal, child murdering maniac who condones rape and slavery and a crucified terrorist who was born of rape that you worship

There is evidence is at the museum of pre-history in St Eyzies, France but you seem to have ignored the link for some reason. There is evidence in any one of the 2000+ caves so far found that were settled by Cro Magnon man.

You ignorance is irrelevant.
One way or another

United States

#120040 Feb 26, 2013
Evolution has brought nothing of value for society or the mind.

People are controlled because they are weak and fearful. We all have fear, its just how and why we choose to deal with it.

Our minds are the most precious things we own. The only way to control and strengthen that mind, is with the utmost truth.

No one can make us believe anything. We do that by choice. If you cannot see and understand all that is right in front of you with every post, then your mind was given away a long time ago.

If I am constantly attacked, just for my beliefs, that means I am not allowed to strengthen my mind and voice. If many try to stop my voice, they prove they are afraid of what I have to say.

If people have a brain, they will see I don't speak I'll of those that don't speak I'll of me. If their opinion differs, I don't speak against them, but I may challenge what they say, with care.

The mind is the absolute most fickle instrument in the universe. Without the truth at every moment, the mind will turn on itself in so very many ways.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120041 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you categorically insist that no evidence for God exists, and then in the same breath acknowledge that many scientists believe in God?
Why do you see a conflict?

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 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 43,370
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min THE LONE WORKER 205,347
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 18,682
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) 14 min Chazofsaints 37
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr Chazofsaints 923
Questions about first life Sun Upright Scientist 18
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Sun Dogen 151,492
More from around the web