Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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." Full Story
Elohim

Branford, CT

#123690 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's laughable to watch you try to defend a veritable quack in your desperate attempts to prop up your religion. If you were interested in science, you would plainly acknowledge the fraudulent nature of Haeckle's drawings. However, your quest for truth is superseded by your desire to defend your atheistic religion.
More creationist B.S. from an anti-science, anti-intellectual radical. Atheist follow no religion.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#123691 Mar 15, 2013
Dong wrote:
Kitten,
I hope someday you have sex with a man, at least just to try it. It would be interesting to see if you liked it or not.
How do YOU like sex with men? Pitcher or Catcher?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123692 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How is the Coelacanth embarrassing?
Another embarrassingly idiotic post by HST.
Look at history instead of hiding your head in the sand.
The coelacanth was a classic transitional species... the poster child of organic evolution until 1938 when an actual specimen became available for dissection.
Now it's been relegated to a peripheral branch of the tree of life.
Unfortunately, paleontologists have not learned a lesson in humility and continue to make bold, unsubstantiated claims that they cannot prove. They keep searching in vain for transitional species, constantly lower their standards as to what constitutes "transitional".
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123693 Mar 15, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>More creationist B.S. from an anti-science, anti-intellectual radical. Atheist follow no religion.
I am "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual" because I question politically correct dogma?

Your deceiving yourself if you think atheism is not a religion. You worship at the feet of intellectual elites.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123694 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so. That is mere wishful thinking by creatards.
Now it did not have fully functional legs like modern creatures do, but it still had much more than mere fins. That is why it is called a transitional species. Still a fish, but it has some of the characteristics of a tetrapod:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news...
The coelacanth has more than "mere fins".
It is not transitional.
It lives 1,500 feet deep in the ocean and is not about to venture out onto land.
Learn a lesson in humility.
Your storytelling is not science.
Mugwump

London, UK

#123695 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Take a lessson from the coelacanth...
Yet another embarrassing failed prediction of Darwinism.
Want to explain why?

Oh and I suggest if you are going to use the term living fossil - you look up its meaning first

Oh and the term species and family and genus

Oh and compare the fossils with the living examples and look for differences

Then you good to go
Elohim

Branford, CT

#123696 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I am "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual" because I question politically correct dogma?
Your deceiving yourself if you think atheism is not a religion. You worship at the feet of intellectual elites.
No, you keep repeating debunked creationist B.S. Atheists do not follow any religion. Keep repeating your refuted creationist B.S. I enjoy laughing at you.
Dong

Kent, WA

#123697 Mar 15, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>How do YOU like sex with men? Pitcher or Catcher?
As the catcher since Im female.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123698 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at history instead of hiding your head in the sand.
The coelacanth was a classic transitional species... the poster child of organic evolution until 1938 when an actual specimen became available for dissection.
Now it's been relegated to a peripheral branch of the tree of life.
Unfortunately, paleontologists have not learned a lesson in humility and continue to make bold, unsubstantiated claims that they cannot prove. They keep searching in vain for transitional species, constantly lower their standards as to what constitutes "transitional".
And it still is a transitional species.

Do you think that all transitional species die out? Or do you think that evolution has a goal? Neither one of those occur. There is no reason that transitional species have to go extinct. The odds are that they will go extinct since over 99% of all species that ever existed went extinct. Of course with millions of species some will not have gone extinct.

Once again HST you clearly have a very poor idea of what the Theory of Evolution says or how it works. That means you will continue to make absolutely idiotic mistakes when you attack it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123699 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The coelacanth has more than "mere fins".
It is not transitional.
It lives 1,500 feet deep in the ocean and is not about to venture out onto land.
Learn a lesson in humility.
Your storytelling is not science.
And you do not know what the word "transitional" means.

'Nuff said.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123700 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And it still is a transitional species.
Do you think that all transitional species die out? Or do you think that evolution has a goal? Neither one of those occur. There is no reason that transitional species have to go extinct. The odds are that they will go extinct since over 99% of all species that ever existed went extinct. Of course with millions of species some will not have gone extinct.
Once again HST you clearly have a very poor idea of what the Theory of Evolution says or how it works. That means you will continue to make absolutely idiotic mistakes when you attack it.
Look on any evolutionary tree of life.
The coelacanth is not considered transitional by taxonomists.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123701 Mar 15, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Dishonesty?... Really? After all the hoaxes, lies and downright ignorance of scientific fact by the evolutionist you dare call others dishonest?... Whatever

Dishonesty?... Really? After all the hoaxes, lies and downright ignorance of scientific fact by the creationist you dare call others dishonest?... Whatever

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123702 Mar 15, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Fits and spurts huh?... More like pick and place... Devil's in the small print.. Lol...

Indeed. You should look at the small print on creation.com


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Again, this looks like more lies to those outsiders who don't know you. Yes, evolution is predicated upon and demonstrated by the fossil record (among many other things).

Gould and Eldridge agree that evolution is seen in the fossil record, but the notion of 'gradualism' was not well supported. Evolution goes more by fits and spurts and that observation is the foundation of PE.

What Darwin said about the fossil record was true in Darwin's day.

He would be very gratified at today's fossil record.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123703 Mar 15, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
As the Twilight Zone theme plays in the back ground... Another wacko brainwashed by the leftist god hating professors...
Get back to science bud... Design is clear as A bell...


I can deal with reality and you can't so you go into a jealous hissy fit.

Design is clear as a bell in cars, houses and file cabinets, but nature runs by natural law. Gravity works that way, rain works that way, evolution works that way.

Sorry. Why can god run all those other things via nature, but he has to be a wet nurse for creationism


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>I don't actually believe UC, but that is his credibility issue.

For me I did it on my own. I was in college and in a psych program. Lots of science classes. It made me wonder because I knew there was a chasm between what I believed and what I knew. I used to pray to God to lead me to his truth. Like so many people I looked to apologetics to satisfy my logical/scientific side. And it blew up. It was screaming irrational and I knew it! If the logic behind Christianity was that bad then believing it was crazy, is the conclusion I was forced into. It took awhile (about 15 years) but I worked my way back from an instant reaction to atheism, to agnosticism to a sort of deist/gnostic (yes, I know that is sort of an oxymoron) Christianity (with a liberal sprinkling of Buddhism for flavor). I spend time reading books about Jesus from secular/scholarly authors and I find great value in the teachings of Jesus. I know there is no logical/rational/scientific way to support my faith, but my faith no longer needs any of those things. My god is not at odds with scientific facts. And I think my prayer was "answered".

I would not say that god "created" the universe, but more like the universe and god co-arise. But that is a completely different issue.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123704 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What did Tiktaalik's reproductive system look like?
Tell me about Tiktaalik's integumentary.system.
If you can't answer these questions, you can't assume transitional status.

Tell me again why God created humans with an appendix which is no longer useful for its original purpose.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123705 Mar 15, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
The old Tiktaailk missing link huh?... And the evolutionist say it's us that bring up ancient arguments... The bones in the fins were not attached to the skeleton and could not have supported it's weight on land... Surly by now in this day and age we would be given A better example than this laughable so called but far from proven link... Pathetic

Sounds like you don't understand Tiktaailk. Why not read factual information about it BEFORE you demonstrate your ignorance?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123706 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Look on any evolutionary tree of life.
The coelacanth is not considered transitional by taxonomists.
You did not look deep enough.

All species are "transitional". Some are closer to major changes than others, that is all.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123707 Mar 15, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you for real Dude
I would be utterly and devastatingly embarrassed and humiliated if I ever produced a list like the one you have as evidence for human evolution
Good heavens!
We're going from bad to worse
Next I expect some fool will bring up Titaalik
Now I can clearly see the extent of your evo-tardism...
Thus far it was all cloaked in mystery with your oblique references to "Page one" of the sister debate thread
HELP ME LORD!!!
IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO HAS ANY EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION?????
I need a debate Lord
Not an encounter with marshmallows and evo-goons

Says the guy who argues in outdated creationist cliches.

Says the guy who can't pick science out of a line-up.

Says the guy who will believe anything a creations site tells him.

Science is a culture of skepticism, not a culture of believing whatever you want to believe.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123708 Mar 15, 2013
And this is the last time I will link this site, maybe.

Evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

http://www.fermentarium.com/random-news/giant...

rAmen!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123709 Mar 15, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes
Right on cue
Here's the fool with Tiktaalik

You hate Tiktaalik because you cannot refute it. It was found at the time and place evolution predicted it. That has got to hurt.

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
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 45 min Chimney1 513
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr dirtclod 134,519
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) 1 hr spiderlover 77
How would creationists explain... 2 hr FREE SERVANT 444
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 4 hr Chimney1 13,635
Science News (Sep '13) 16 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,948
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... Sat Dogen 718
More from around the web