Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122102 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
Evo-tards, so keen to make their evolutionary cases, do indeed resort to fraud, dishonesty, and out right lies
Irony meter go boom.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#122103 Mar 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then tell us the "intelligence mechanisms" behind the haphazard mix of oil and water being sorted into two separate ordered components. Because as far as we're aware when oil and water are mixed they separate naturally without any intelligent intervention needed.
You compare the separation of polar and non-polar molecules to the purposeful assembly of DNA?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122104 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks
Here's a prize...hot off the press...
And this one's for you especially Chimney....UC may like it too
SZ will hate it
Its not YouTube
http://creation.com/genetic-entropy
Oh, Russ? You just contradicted yourself again. It's okay though, Cowboy's been doing that for years.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122105 Mar 7, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Copy and pasting what other wishful idiots claim only makes a bigger fool for following them.
Didn't you copy-paste from "Survive2012"?

Don't you copy-paste nearly all the time?

And when you don't we worry if we should have called the guys in white coats for ya.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122106 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
To reminisce about small fiasco called Archaeoraptor...
And found by evolutionary scientists to be a fake using evolutionary science you reject for theological reasons. The resulting two separate fossils fitting in quite nicely with the fossil record.

Thanks again for another demonstration of your hypocrisy.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#122107 Mar 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
From the biology on line dictionary. Please note all three definitions apply to HST:
"Dictionary A Ape
Ape
Ape
1.(Science: zoology) a quadrumanous mammal, especially. Of the family Simiadae, having teeth of the same number and form as in man, having teeth of the same number and form as in man, and possessing neither a tail nor cheek pouches. The name is applied esp. To species of the genus hylobates, and is sometimes used as a general term for all quadrumana. The higher forms, the gorilla, chimpanzee, and ourang, are often called anthropoid apes or man apes.
The ape of the old testament was prqobably the rhesus monkey of india, and allied forms.
2. One who imitates servilely (in allusion to the manners of the ape); a mimic.
3. A dupe.
Origin: as. Apa; akin to D. Aap, OHG. Affo, g. Affe, Icel. Api, Sw. Apa, dan. Abe, W. Epa.
<quoted text>
Nothing, as already has been pointed out we have been considered to be apes much longer than 40 years.
<quoted text>
Once again, no need. You have no provided any evidence to support your claim. Claims made without any supporting evidence can be dismissed without any supporting evidence.
Perhaps if you learned how science worked you could debate properly. Right now you are only shooting yourself in the foot.
The online dictionary is not a peer reviewed journal, as you always demand. You are entirely ignorant of what science is or isn't, given your emotional committment to bedtime stores. You cannot state what an ape is or isn't, so stop your blathering about humans being apes. Speak for yourself.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122108 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
A snowflake is not ordered. DNA is.
How is order measured?

If DNA is "ordered" then (according to you) we've been undergoing genetic entropy for near 6,000 years. What's the "proper order" and how was this determined?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#122109 Mar 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about?
You didn't ask for an proof of the Bible.
You are ignorant of science since you asked for proof where you don't ask for proof. In fact you have the whole process of science back asswards. You do not ask for proof that an idea is correct, you try to prove that an idea is wrong. If you want to know if an idea is plausible you need to look a the theory or hypothesis and the evidence that supports that theory or hypothesis.
Your problem is that you still do not know what qualifies as scientific evidence. Therefore you will always be asking questions that show you have no clue. So they are not really "stupid questions". They do show that the asker of these questions is definitely not educated and very possibly stupid.
You said that "science" had concluded that no worldwide flood occurred. I asked for proof.
No you accuse me of asking for proof of the Bible...
No... I'm asking for proof of your unsubstantiated claim that
"science" has disproven the past occurance of a global flood.
If you claim to be committed to science, then back up your claims with evidence.
So far all you are capable of doing is hurling idiotic insults, creating diversions and smokescreens, and occasionally posting a link from a cheap atheist website which never actually addresses the question.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#122110 Mar 7, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And found by evolutionary scientists to be a fake using evolutionary science you reject for theological reasons. The resulting two separate fossils fitting in quite nicely with the fossil record.
Thanks again for another demonstration of your hypocrisy.
"evolutionary scientist" is an oxymoron.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122111 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations, Russell...
The proverbial "precambrian rabbit" has been found.
Evolution, according the the criteria of prominent evolutionary biologists, has been debunked.
Then I suggest you inform the relevant authorities at once! This could be an amazing scientific breakthrough!!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122112 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The online dictionary is not a peer reviewed journal, as you always demand. You are entirely ignorant of what science is or isn't, given your emotional committment to bedtime stores. You cannot state what an ape is or isn't, so stop your blathering about humans being apes. Speak for yourself.
Peer reviewed journals are used to supply evidence for new or controversial ideas. That people are apes is neither. It is universally accepted by biologist with the possible exception of a fraction of a percent that are pure Froot Loops.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122113 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Prove that Lucy was a pre-human ancestor. The word of an atheist stooge is insufficient.
Note he did not mention theology in any way shape or form.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122114 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you a religious bigot?
Why are you a reality bigot?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122115 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
"evolutionary scientist" is an oxymoron.
Wrong, an oxymoron is a self contradicting term. It can easily be shown how evolutionary scientists follow the scientific method.

An oxymoron would be a term like "honest creationist" or the even more laughable "informed creationist".
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122116 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You deep insecurity is transparent.
BONG!!!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122117 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply attaching a label to something doesn't make it so. Since you are such an expert on comparative primate anatomy, please answer the following:
1. What defines "ape".
2. Why are humans now classified as apes when 40 years ago they
were not? What has changed?
3. I say that Lucy is nothing more than a chimpanzee subspecies, completely unrelated to human lineage, and that it is less than 5,000 years old. Prove me wrong.
3 - you prove you right.(shrug)
HTS

Englewood, CO

#122118 Mar 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again HTS shows that he does not understand basic science.
I ask for proof that Lucy was a pre-human ancestor.
You accuse me of not understanding basic science.
Basic science includes substantiation of hypoetheses with proofs.
So far all you have is a hypothesis...
I repeat... the words of atheists stooges do not constitute science.
Artistically embellished drawings in National Geographic do not constitute science.
Establishing the fact that australopithicus had slightly less parallel jaw arches than modern chimpanzees does not constitute "science".
Radiometrically dating rocks lying next to australopithicus does not constitute science, because the ages of the rocks have nothing to do with when Lucy died. You have no proof that Lucy isn't older than a few hundred years. It you have any proof, let's see it. Quote-mining isn't going to cut it.
References to perceived authorities do not constitute science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122119 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You said that "science" had concluded that no worldwide flood occurred. I asked for proof.
No you accuse me of asking for proof of the Bible...
No... I'm asking for proof of your unsubstantiated claim that
"science" has disproven the past occurance of a global flood.
If you claim to be committed to science, then back up your claims with evidence.
So far all you are capable of doing is hurling idiotic insults, creating diversions and smokescreens, and occasionally posting a link from a cheap atheist website which never actually addresses the question.
Yes, like an idiot you asked for proof. Thank you for confirming that you know nothing of science and need to go back to elementary school. And I also explained how that takes evidence to understand.

You have yet to finish your lesson in evidence. So unless I feel like it, I will not give you evidence. An idiot like you would simply deny the undeniable.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#122120 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You said that "science" had concluded that no worldwide flood occurred. I asked for proof.
No you accuse me of asking for proof of the Bible...
No... I'm asking for proof of your unsubstantiated claim that
"science" has disproven the past occurance of a global flood.
If you claim to be committed to science, then back up your claims with evidence.
So far all you are capable of doing is hurling idiotic insults, creating diversions and smokescreens, and occasionally posting a link from a cheap atheist website which never actually addresses the question.
Mankind as a species has not been around for more than 200,000 years. In the geologic record and in the ice core samples taken from glaciers, there is no evidence of a global flood during that time. If there had been a global flood during that time, there would have been evidence of it. There isn't any such evidence because it never happened.

That's the evidence! The global flood never happened! Deal with it!!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#122121 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm ignorant of science because I request proof of unsubstantiated bedtime stories?
No, it's because you lack the basic knowledge of the subjects you attempt to critique that even the questions themselves demonstrate your misunderstanding.

Often times you may as well be asking "Why don't we see a dog giving birth to a cat?"

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) 2 min Into The Night 67,003
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr IB DaMann 28,546
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 1 hr Subduction Zone 218
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Genesis Enigma 160,913
What does the theory of evolution state? 2 hr Timmee 162
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr MIDutch 221,214
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 3 hr Timmee 111
More from around the web