Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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

#120220 Feb 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Look it up. Are you to stupid to use a search engine? It is not an assumption.
<quoted text>
Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action - Goethe
I think this clearly demonstrates you don't look at links. If you had looked at the last link I posted on this subject to you the you would not have made this gross error, again.
. You are a bigger ignoramus than I realized... Suggesting that I can simply google how much C-14 was in the atmosphere 18,000 years ago and I'll get an accurate answer. Did you say you believed in science?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120221 Feb 26, 2013
By the way Rusty, if a scientist manages to do real work in his field, writes peer reviewed work etc.. It should ring huge alarm bells if he publishes a "scientific article" in a creationist magazine in order to avoid real peer review. It means the he knows it is not up to snuff scientifically or mathematically.

So once again, find some real science or hang it up.
One way or another

United States

#120222 Feb 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're dishonestly creating a strawman argument wherein the effect is claimed to be the cause. It would be nice if you'd try not to lie so much.
You're the liar, but you know that.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120223 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Kng... Bashing so-called "creation science" doesn't provide a shred of evidence for evolution. Why are you wasting your time?
The subject was the validity of "Creation Science" Scientists.

"Russell" was arguing FOR said scientists.

I said that "Creation Science Scientists" were fine, as long as the subjects did not involve subject that a preconceived notion could be involved. An example I used as being without a problem would be a PhD Engineer designing a hydroelectrical plant.

PhD Petroleum Engineers who are Creationists are few/far between, and probably unemployable.

See http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm
Old Earth Creation Science Testimony
Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism

He's a Christian Creationist, but RATIONAL. He and I might have some discussion as to philosophical details, but I agree with his science.

I illustrated my position against Russell using Henry Morris (Creation Science Scientist) who claimed that the craters on the Moon and Mars were created after a battle between Satan and the Archangel Michael.

Henry Morris' writings you can check for yourself.

Mind-boggling.

And with that, I have to go to bed. Late here, after midnite...and 5am comes quickly.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#120224 Feb 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
A short history of how junk DNA was mathematically necessitated by Darwinian thought:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14-TXfGxPu...
The basic premise is flawed so the calculations are meaningless.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120225 Feb 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
He, or she, is hysterical
FYI...."He".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120226 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're still buying into the debunked homo erectus BS?
Dubois found multiple fully human skeletons at the site of Java man, but didn't report his findings for over 25 years because he knew that it would cast doubt on his finding. That is scientific fraud.
Are you seriously impressed with a gibbon skullcap and a human femur. As a physician, I can tell you that the femur that, by the way, was found 46 feet away from the skullcap, is 100% human.
Homo erectus was never debunked. In fact he is the "missing link" according to your good old buddy Gish.

Let's see a real source that backs up your claims. Not a lying creatard source.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120227 Feb 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>

Even if we cannot answer the question of how animals learn to migrate that is not evidence against evolution. It only means there is another problem to solve, nothing more, nothing less.

This is the grand fallacy of your logic. You assume that an evolutionary mechanism exists for everything.

Even if the proverbial Precambrian rabbit were discovered or cactus DNA was found in a chimp, you would simple rationalize and say that these a minor details that will eventually be explicable in the context of evolution. In your mind, it is impossible for anyone to cite a complexity too great to be created by evolution without intelligent design...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120228 Feb 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I said
DEMONSTRATE HOW THEIR SCIENCE IS DEFICIENT
Not their theological musings
Calm down from your frenzied state and at least read what I am asking of you.....
Ach du meine Güte! The utter bigotry...
One last point:

These certain "Creation Science Scientists" (such as Morris) cannot divorce their **SCIENCE** from their **Theology**.

Per Amazon (re: "The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth")

http://www.amazon.com/The-Remarkable-Birth-Pl...

"DR. HENRY MORRIS is recognized as one of America's greatest authorities on scientific creationism.

He is thoroughly equipped to come to grips with his subject material. Armed with three earned degrees (including a Ph.D.) in the sciences, he served as department head or professor at four famous institutions, Louisiana University, the University of Minnesota, Rice University, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute. He is presently the director of the Institute for Creation Research. He has written more than twenty-five books and monographs."

<<end cut/paste>>

He markets his books as SCIENCE, not Theology.

Your point refuted.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120229 Feb 26, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The subject was the validity of "Creation Science" Scientists.
"Russell" was arguing FOR said scientists.
I said that "Creation Science Scientists" were fine, as long as the subjects did not involve subject that a preconceived notion could be involved. An example I used as being without a problem would be a PhD Engineer designing a hydroelectrical plant.
PhD Petroleum Engineers who are Creationists are few/far between, and probably unemployable.
..........
I illustrated my position against Russell using Henry Morris (Creation Science Scientist) who claimed that the craters on the Moon and Mars were created after a battle between Satan and the Archangel Michael.
Henry Morris' writings you can check for yourself.
Mind-boggling.
And with that, I have to go to bed. Late here, after midnite...and 5am comes quickly.
You have validated my very point......

Its fine for dark skinned people to work in your cotton fields...but NOT OKAY FOR THEM TO DINE AT YOUR TABLE...

CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY

Dr John Baumgardner

Biography
John Baumgardner was working on a Ph.D. in electrical engineering when he discovered the reality of Jesus in a dramatic way through a group Bible study of the Gospel of John. After a four-year tour of duty at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, where he was engaged in gas dynamic laser research, he joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ. Observing the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the faith of Christian college students, Dr Baumgardner began to develop and present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution’s false claims.

Upon realizing that Noah’s Flood involved a planetary-scale tectonic catastrophe, he left Campus Crusade to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level. His Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical-shell finite-element model for the earth’s mantle, a program now known as TERRA.

Upon completing his Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics, he accepted a position as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he continued his research in planetary mantle dynamics, including the potential for catastrophic mantle overturn. He presented his work describing this mechanism for the Genesis Flood, now known as ‘catastrophic plate tectonics,’ at six International Conferences on Creationism held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dr Baumgardner’s technical work at Los Alamos included development of a new global ocean model for investigating climate change. He served as a member of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team and led the RATE research effort on carbon-14. He retired from Los Alamos in 2004 and joined the Institute for Creation Research in 2005 where he helped develop a state-of-the-art computer program named Mendel’s Accountant for modeling of the processes of mutation and natural selection. In 2008 he joined Logos Research Associates, a collaborative network of Christian research scientists whose focus is origins and earth history issues from a Biblical perspective.

B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

http://creation.com/john-baumgardner

----------

Dr Steve Austin--> PhD Geologist Professor USA

http://creation.com/dr-steven-a-austin

And a paper by Dr Austin
http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-miner...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120230 Feb 26, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI...."He".
Thanks

I assume nothing...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120232 Feb 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We have already done so. Here are two freebies for you: John Sanford whose embarrassing "Genetic Entropy" has not gotten any traction anywhere besides creatard groups. And of course Michael Behe who totally blew it at the Dover trial and since.
Now here is a challenge for you, name any creation scientist who contributed anything using creationism. There are creationists that can do science, I am unaware of any discoveries that support creationism.
Sanford's book provided proof that evolution is impossible. You keep bashing Sanford's book, and yet have not provided a single logical refutation of it. All you can do is hurl childish insults and parrot speculative stories. Have you read it? Have you looked up any of its references? I read it on the recommendation of a PhD in marine biology who specialized in genetics. Every physician with whom I've spoken about it thinks it makes 100% logical sense. Where is your evidence to refute any of its claims?
Sanford started out as an atheist. However, his experience in plant genetics lead him to the realization of the fallacy of evolution. I suppose he was just "anti-science" because he didn't just keep guzzling the atheist
kool-aid like everyone else.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120233 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if we cannot answer the question of how animals learn to migrate that is not evidence against evolution. It only means there is another problem to solve, nothing more, nothing less.
This is the grand fallacy of your logic. You assume that an evolutionary mechanism exists for everything.
Even if the proverbial Precambrian rabbit were discovered or cactus DNA was found in a chimp, you would simple rationalize and say that these a minor details that will eventually be explicable in the context of evolution. In your mind, it is impossible for anyone to cite a complexity too great to be created by evolution without intelligent design...
How is that a fallacy fool? We don't assume a evolutionary mechanism exists, we deduct that an evolutionary mechanism exists. Creationists assume, scientists deduct. Do you know what deduction is? Here is a hint, you cannot do it with evidence and other examples.

Quite projecting your failures onto others.

By the way, I found that you did get your Home erectus lies from a creatard source. The doubts about Dubois' find was that they may not have been from one species. That does not matter, other more complete samples were found elsewhere on the island and more were found at Dubois site. He did not hide the other finds, he never made the other finds.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120234 Feb 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Homo erectus was never debunked. In fact he is the "missing link" according to your good old buddy Gish.
Let's see a real source that backs up your claims. Not a lying creatard source.
Give me a break.. Any fool can see that you have nothing. A human femur and an ape skullcap. Do you seriously think that was anything less than a human femur? And what's the explanation for Dubois's fraud?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120235 Feb 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
By the way Rusty, if a scientist manages to do real work in his field, writes peer reviewed work etc.. It should ring huge alarm bells if he publishes a "scientific article" in a creationist magazine in order to avoid real peer review. It means the he knows it is not up to snuff scientifically or mathematically.
So once again, find some real science or hang it up.
Its fine for dark skinned people to work in your cotton fields...but NOT OKAY FOR THEM TO DINE AT YOUR TABLE...

CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120236 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Sanford's book provided proof that evolution is impossible. You keep bashing Sanford's book, and yet have not provided a single logical refutation of it. All you can do is hurl childish insults and parrot speculative stories. Have you read it? Have you looked up any of its references? I read it on the recommendation of a PhD in marine biology who specialized in genetics. Every physician with whom I've spoken about it thinks it makes 100% logical sense. Where is your evidence to refute any of its claims?
Sanford started out as an atheist. However, his experience in plant genetics lead him to the realization of the fallacy of evolution. I suppose he was just "anti-science" because he didn't just keep guzzling the atheist
kool-aid like everyone else.
NO, it doesn't. Sanford's book was an abject failure. He started with an incorrect assumption and from there it got worse.

He is a joke in the academic world because of that book.

There was no need to debunk it, since it never made its point in the first place.

So the challenge still stands for our creatard friends.

Find some real science done by a creationist science using creationism.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120237 Feb 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Its fine for dark skinned people to work in your cotton fields...but NOT OKAY FOR THEM TO DINE AT YOUR TABLE...
CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY
Nope, a lie spread by creatards and nothing more.

Keep trying idiot.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120238 Feb 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You have validated my very point......
Its fine for dark skinned people to work in your cotton fields...but NOT OKAY FOR THEM TO DINE AT YOUR TABLE...
CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY
...
Whatever you want to call it, RACE is not involved. It's just a 'hot button' you feel will appeal emotionally to the simple-minded dolts (such as yourself).

Nor is BIGOTRY. Another 'hot button' you feel you need to employ.

My derision of persons like Morris is just the intellectual need to keep Science reliable and honest. Not polluted by preconception.

Hence my earlier post of the "Old-Earth Creationist" petroleum engineer(Glenn R. Morton: http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm ) that I DO respect -- which you chose to omit from your response -- despite likely not holding the same philosophical beliefs as he.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120239 Feb 26, 2013
And even the rare creatard like Baumgardner who got a degree in geophysics did not do any creationist work in geophysics. Their creation "science" is only published in such jokes as Rusty's Creation Miseries.

No peer review, just a bunch of failed scientists circle jerking for Jesus.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120240 Feb 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This was your response to Dogen citing cytochrome-c as evidence of evolution, and its woefully inadequate.
The non-functional portion (about 70%) of the ubiquitous cy-c protein, which is required for metabolism, follows a pattern of variation consistent with common ancestry and increasing evolutionary distance. Thus no difference between our own and a chimp, one with a gorilla, and an increasing number the less closely related the species is.
The only explanations for the differences are:
1. Functional - more similar species were designed with more similar cyt-c. This argument fails on a number of counts.
If you ignore evolution, a bat will have more similar metabolic requirements to a bird than to a hippo, so it should have more similar cyt-c to a bird. Yet we do not see similarities in terms of metabolic requirements, but evolutionary distance. The bat cyt-c is closer to a hippos. And if you say, well, birds are different in many ways, so that is no argument...A hippo has more similarity to a whale than it does to a rhinoceros. A whale has more similarity to a hippo than it does to a walrus. And so on - its evolutionary, not environmental or lifestyle difference, that dictates similarity in cyt-c. The cyt-c record matches evolutionary relationships that were first suggested by the fossil record.
Also, this is the non-functional portion. Experiments have shown that human cyt-c works just fine in a yeast. The non-functional portion is just that - it has little or no effect on the activity of the protein.
2. The differences are just random mutations occurring since the Fall, part of good old "genetic entropy". In which case we would expect to see those differences randomly scattered across species, not forming a pattern that just happens to be consistent with common ancestry. Without recent common ancestry, there should be no particular reason why chimp and gorilla cyt-c are so similar to our own. It could just as easily be most similar to a bat or a tuna fish.
The differences are random...but its a cumulative random difference matching evolutionary distance (time since the split of common ancestry), for any pair of species chosen.
3. God or the Devil planted this evidence, along with the other genome evidence and the fossil evidence and the evidence of earth's age etc, all things you reject, but which produce a coherent consistency with evolution and an old Earth...just to test our faith or lead us astray.
You can have that one. Otherwise, its evolution all the way.
Redundancy in nature is your sizzling evidence for evolution?

How so?

The splits, as you refer to them, are quite arbitary, as are molecular clocks

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/18...

http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...

http://dienekes.blogspot.com.br/2012/08/or-ma...

Don't hang your hat on ever changing "science"

Believe in God---> NEVER changing

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 Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) 21 min LOU BARRETO 94
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 43 min DanFromSmithville 201,229
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 43 min NightSerf 15,987
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr RobSine 97
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr DanFromSmithville 40,441
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 2 hr One way or another 10
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 10 hr Fear-God 11
More from around the web