Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
120,541 - 120,560 of 171,442 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123710
Mar 15, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
That icon of evolution, the horse, and the series of images in textbooks and museums trying to depict the evolution of the horse from small to large, is now dead. ANother myth debunked. Throw out all the old textbooks, they're all wrong.(Again!)

Another lie.

Prove it or it is just another of your thousands of unsupported assertions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123711
Mar 15, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
As I recall, Tiktaalik was just a fish, and it's fish fins could not possibly ever support the weight of its body on land because there is no skeletal support connecting the fins to the body. Just more wishful thinking by the evos.

You have been reading too many creotard sites.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik3.html

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123712
Mar 15, 2013
 
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I'm not stupid enough to get any info from wiki which anyone can edit... And your wrong the Tiktaailk didn't have arms it had fins and they were not attached to the skeleton in any way...
You people will believe anything...
Man I should have sold used cars...

Chickenfeces.

No one ever said they had arms, dork.

Another straw-man creationist lie.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123713
Mar 15, 2013
 
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah there's a few of them on this thread...

Unable to deal with content you try to joke your way out of a corner.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123714
Mar 15, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you slip fact right out of your argument, perhaps it’s an issue of your deliberate ignorance
Please show any “genuine” documentation (not creation.com fabrication and BS) to show his drawings were produced to convince anyone that early embryos looked virtually identical
As it happens mammalian embryos do tend to look similar. In general terms aquatic, even amphibian embryos have a marked similarity to mammalian embryos, the key word is similar.
Mouse embryo
http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/img/origina...
similar to a human embryo
http://matthew2262.files.wordpress.com/2012/0...
Note these are photographs, not sketches.
Please show where, on improving his knowledge the drawings were not edited, really, does this advancing information retrieval constitute fraud? Or are you just a hate filled liar who has found something to latch on to and is a little short of facts?
There is no one continuing to publish those drawings in relation to biology or evolutional education, the drawing are in older books, or hyped to hell on creationist websites. Where they are published in modern books it is to show the difference in understanding between early biological sciences and modern biological sciences
Just because you are unwilling to invest in modern education is no ones fault but your own, and of course it shows in you posts.
What reasons do I have to accept your denials, lies and hatred on peer review when you are not even able to defend a 4000 years old un peer reviewed godbook of mythology and pseudo science that hypes the worlds biggest fraud and is incapable of peer review?
You are unwilling to even accept the existence of documented facts that I have shown you TWICE where evolutionary biology articles can most often (there are other sources) be found peer reviewed. You seem to be happy to lie in the face of fact by ignoring the evidence.
I am not defending the drawings, as I have already agreed they are inaccurate by today’s standards of hi resolution medical photography and 3D imaging, this is fact as shown by evolutionary scientists and modern technology/understanding, not as you claim by creatards. However for the standards of 140 years ago those drawings were acceptable. Time is the thing, the thing that creatards can never seem to get a handle on. 13.7 billion years, 4.5 billion years, 140 years, it all gets jumbled in the last 6000 years to them because facts screw up their objections
I have no tolerance for liars and the evidence shows categorically that there was no fraud. Therefore you are lying. Does lying for your belief make you hard? Does it give you an erection? Does it help you masturbate? These and deliberate ignorance are the only reasons to lie for you god.
You can always tell when a creatard is lying they always prefix there lies with either “clearly” or “obvious” meaning that they don’t actually have any evidence so need to rely on what is to them alone is clear and obvious faith.

In terms of "fraud" there is a lot of similarity between his work and the works of Schiaparelli, Burton and Percival Lowell in their sketches of the canals on Mars.

Telescope quality was still poor then by today's standards and the same goes for microscopes. And the worst those guys were accused of was being a bit too imaginative and not accounting for optical distortions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123715
Mar 15, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Take a lessson from the coelacanth...
Yet another embarrassing failed prediction of Darwinism.


Here is a list of Darwin's predictions.

Show me where a coelacanth is mentioned, please.



Failure to do so will confirm that you are a liar.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123716
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.

I have refuted this. You failed (for some strange reason) to even acknowledge I refuted this.

What are you afraid of? That you will have to find new material to tell lies about? Suck it up.

No one has made a successful case for Haeckle's drawings being fraudulent. If I am wrong then enlighten me.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123717
Mar 15, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How is the Coelacanth embarrassing?
Another embarrassingly idiotic post by HST.

He has no morals. Rusty at least makes some effort, on occasion, but HTS cannot stop himself from telling lies, even about things that are easy to verify.

Anyone who needs a god standing over them to behave correctly has not morals. That is just fear, not morality.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123718
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
There is no skepticism in evolutionary biology.
The immutable doctrine is EVOLUTIONDIDIT.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123719
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me again why God created humans with an appendix which is no longer useful for its original purpose.
The stale "imperfections of nature" observation is a philosophical argument that has been repeatedly and soundly debunked. You only underscore the weakness of the evolution hypothesis by continually dredging it up.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123720
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

*** HTS CONFESSES MACROEVOLUTION!!!***
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.

Where are you getting these bedtime stories from? Coelacanth were never seriously considered to be a major transitional, at least not for very long.

Coelacanth is proof of evolution. NONE of the existing GENUS of Latimeria (modern Coelacanth) exist in the fossil record.

Coelacanth seems to have evolved from Macropoma or Macropomoides from the mid to late cretaceous. All of those species and families and ORDERS have died out. So, if you ADMIT that the modern coelacanth is related to the coelacanths in the fossil record you are confessing MACROEVOLUTION in a very large way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanthiforme...

So you have CONFESSED MACROEVOLUTION, but are denying that transitionals exist. Weird.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123721
Mar 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I am "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual" because I question politically correct dogma?

No, you are anti-sciece because you hate science and deny discoveries from every major field of science.

You are anti-intellectual because you are stupid.

I hope this clarifies the issue for you.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••