Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179742 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124426 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
From the Great Barrier Reef
Living creature--->Fungia fungites
Fossil from dinosaur layers named--->
Cyclolites undulate
They're identical

Not from anything I could find.

Unsubstantiated assertion till you can provide proof.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124427 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Heavens....
I did not realize how deeply troubled you are
Jonathan Marks is a biological anthropologist of some repute

The guy who wrote "Why I Am Not a Scientist "?

Do you understand what Marks even MEANS by his term "Scientific Racism"?

DO you know that it has NOTHING to do with REAL science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racis...
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Christianity is not responsible for anywhere near the number of deaths directly attributable to atheism and evolution
Since you have a fascination for moving pictures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =FmrRC6zD4ZkXX

THIS IS the sort of thing that Marks is speaking out AGAINST in writings about scientific racism.

YOu are making OUR point!!!

[A slew of BS numbers deleted at this point as they only confirm nonsense]

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124428 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How many?
Stop being hysterical...
How many deaths are directly attributable to Christianity?
You are too vague and fuzzy for my liking
Have you made any technological or medical advances based on your religion like I asked yet? Or should I check back later?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124429 Mar 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, its not all invisible. The physical form is an expression of the genetic code. We can gain information from it. Your only argument is that this information is incomplete and therefore we could be mistaken.
However, acting on partial information gives a better result than acting on no information. Therefore any cues as to health and fitness are valuable, and will improve the odds of successful offspring. My example made that perfectly clear and you have not refuted it, merely repeated your error.
Its a game of odds, not a determination of certainty.
Storytelling is not science.
You have no proof or even scientific evidence of any of the above claims. You have intuitions founded on atheism.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124430 Mar 21, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you made any technological or medical advances based on your religion like I asked yet? Or should I check back later?
Evolution has contributed nothing to the advancement of science. It is useless.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124431 Mar 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What you have said is that you don't understand how taxonomic classification is done.
Carolus Linnaeus, who developed the classification system (or at least one of them) that is in use today, was a Christian, btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_class...
You seem to be blaming Wikipedia for simply reporting the correct classifications. That just seems sad.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not in the same family, genus or species.
Coelacanthus pencillatus: "They bear a superficial similarity to the living Latimeria, though they were smaller, and had more elongated heads. Individuals grew up to 3 feet in length, and had small lobed fins, suggesting that Coelacanthus were open-water predators.
Coelacanthus was a long-lived genus with a worldwide distribution. They survived the Permian–Triassic extinction event, and eventually died out during the Late Jurassic, around 145 million years ago."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanthus
Dogen... storytelling is not science. Your bedtime stories about the coelacanth are amusing, but are devoid of any scientific validity.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124432 Mar 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its only appears a tautology because its a "shorthand", a pithy phrase to describe a process that is not tautological at all.
The longhand version is that in a population containing variation, those variants that happen to be more suited to the existing environment will be more successful at surviving and reproducing than those less suited. "More suited" boils down to the very practical requirements of feeding and protecting themselves, etc.
Nothing tautological about it at all. That argument is merely a weak attempt at word games by creationists.
Your description of natural selection is merely a hypothesis founded on atheism. It is your religion.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#124433 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution has contributed nothing to the advancement of science. It is useless.
LMAO!!! Your Topeka Upstairs Medical College and Tonsorial Parlor education is on full display.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124434 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution has contributed nothing to the advancement of science. It is useless.
Incorrect!!!

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/relevan...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124435 Mar 21, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
The article you posted is worthless.
Understanding how diseases evolve and how insects develop pesticide resistance has nothing to do with evolution.

Please state specifically how a belief in intelligent design would hamper a scientist from understanding how diseases evolve or how insects develop pesticide resistance.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124436 Mar 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: you have me by the balls and there is nothing I can do but run.
Here is a reminder to others what you are running from.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you can't refute anything nor provide evidence so you try the old hand wave technique.
Scientists do agree on evolution. The number of professional scientists that are creationists would not fill up one state mental hospital.
There are more Ph.D scientist in the U.S who have a diagnosis of Schizophrenia than who support creationism.
Think about that.
You can pretend it isn't the truth, but everyone knows.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is both a clear truth and an outrageous lie.
Scientists disagree about few of the basics. It is at the cutting edge where they disagree.
In a room full of random scientists they will all agree gravity exists.
They will disagree on if there is more than one type of Higgs boson.
They will agree evolution happens. They will disagree on the prorating of the mechanisms.
They will agree that blacks holes exist. They will disagree on if information can survive transit across the Schwarzschild radius.
There you go again, Dogen, vainly appealing to authority.
Do you actually believe that anyone acquainted with science would be impressed by your polls?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124437 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The article you posted is worthless.
Understanding how diseases evolve and how insects develop pesticide resistance has nothing to do with evolution.
Please state specifically how a belief in intelligent design would hamper a scientist from understanding how diseases evolve or how insects develop pesticide resistance.
EAZY!!! Someone foolish enough to believe ID will say stupid things like: "The article you posted is worthless.
Understanding how diseases evolve and how insects develop pesticide resistance has nothing to do with evolution....."

That is specifically how a belief in intelligent design would hamper a scientist-wannabe from understanding how diseases evolve or how insects develop pesticide resistance.

Done!! NEXT!!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124438 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Storytelling is not science.
You have no proof or even scientific evidence of any of the above claims. You have intuitions founded on atheism.
It is time for my daily reminder that you do not know what is or is not scientific evidence so this claim of yours is debunked.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124439 Mar 21, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
EAZY!!! Someone foolish enough to believe ID will say stupid things like: "The article you posted is worthless.
Understanding how diseases evolve and how insects develop pesticide resistance has nothing to do with evolution....."
That is specifically how a belief in intelligent design would hamper a scientist-wannabe from understanding how diseases evolve or how insects develop pesticide resistance.
Done!! NEXT!!!
Speculations as to how the evo-fairy created worms into peacocks and algae into oak trees has nothing to do with experimental science.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124440 Mar 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It is time for my daily reminder that you do not know what is or is not scientific evidence so this claim of yours is debunked.
Yet another worthless comment from SZ.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124441 Mar 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is the job of a scientist to be skeptical about anything that passes before him. It is the job of ignorant slobs to deal with whatever they are good at and leave brain surgery to the brain surgeons.
There is not a shred of "skepticism" by evolutionary biologists as to the validity of evolution. It is laughable that you actually think that the atheist stooges that promote your religion are engaging in science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124442 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Yet another worthless comment from SZ.
I very rarely make worthless comments. I was pointing out to those that may not know it already, we do have a few people who read the posts and don't respond, that if it was not obvious yet that you have no idea of what qualifies as evidence.

I am always ready to teach this fairly simple lesson so that I no longer will be able to make this claim against you.

It seems that you prefer to remain ignorant.

That is find with me too. I get to post about what an idiot you are every time you post about evidence.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124443 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Speculations as to how the evo-fairy created worms into peacocks and algae into oak trees has nothing to do with experimental science.
If your magic sky daddy with pixie dust had anything to do with experimental science, then you should be able to make new technical and medical advances based on this religion of yours ...... I'm still waiting .... I understand you've been trying for 2000 years. I hope you'll understand if I go about my usual business while I wait ....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124444 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There is not a shred of "skepticism" by evolutionary biologists as to the validity of evolution. It is laughable that you actually think that the atheist stooges that promote your religion are engaging in science.
And of course How's That for Stupid again shows that he has no clue about science. All real science today is based upon peer review. Most articles fail peer review where experts in the field try to tear apart articles submitted for publication. They look at anything with more skepticism than HTS has ever shown.

Stupid loves to remain in his comfy cocoon of ignorance.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124445 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, they're (fossils) not in any particular order, except the order they were buried in during "their" catastrophy.

That is not what the fossil record shows. That is not even what creationist fossil hunters have found.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 min IB DaMann 23,568
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 min IB DaMann 48,833
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr marksman11 154,833
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr scientia potentia... 216,897
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 12 hr GoTrump 1,047
Evolution in action (May '16) Wed Thick cockney cha... 36
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Dec 5 Timmee 9
More from around the web