Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180392 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

#124447 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.

What you are trying to say is that he has

Genetics
archeology
paleontology
biology
Chemistry.......

on his side and you have a belief ABOUT a belief system.


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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124448 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists were in darkness for centuries prior to the enlightenment which occurred from the bosom of Christianity. Study history. Atheism has contributed NOTHING to science or world progress.

Actually, science was one of the reactions TO Christianity at the time. The protestant reformation and enlightenment periods were also part of that reaction to oppression by the monolithic church.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#124449 Mar 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they are in a particular order, and its one you cannot explain if all these creatures were supposed to be alive at the same time.
Only evolution explains the order we see. Creationism cannot, and your dancing around the point for the last few days instead of providing a credible answer highlights this deficiency beautifully.
Yes I can. It's called a catastrophy. Yours is supposed to be time sequenced layers. Mine is supposed to be catastrophy. Yours says they were layed down in depths over a long periods of time in regular intervals. My says they were basically wound up where they did based on criteria relevant to catastrophy which may be weight, habitat, mobility, unknown factors but mostly all during the same time frame.

I still don't see how you can have a reliable dateable geologic column if fossils only form as a result of catastrophy.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124450 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists were in darkness for centuries prior to the enlightenment which occurred from the bosom of Christianity. Study history. Atheism has contributed NOTHING to science or world progress.
Christianity created the Dark Ages. It all started with the Butchering of poor Hypatia of Alexandria followed by the burning of the Library and didn't stop until rebellion against religion began and became rooted in the separation of Church and state. The only reason Science seemed to make progress under Christianity during the age of enlightenment is because the rebellious free thinkers like Galileo had to be cautions about blatantly opposing or contradicting ridiculous church dogma.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#124451 Mar 21, 2013
It seems we have found a major contradiction with the theory. If fossils only form by catastrophy, how you even have a geologic column? If rocks are dated by index fossils primarily, how could you have index fossils if fossil formation is catastrophic and not based on "layered strata".

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124452 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.
So, decisions made on partial information are NOT better than decisions made on no information? Since in the real world, ALL decisions are based on partial information, you would have to be claiming that choices are useless. Might as well act randomly. That is what you are actually claiming.

The appearance of an individual - health, symmetry, demeanor, vitality, etc, tell us NOTHING about the genetic state? Yeah right. If that were the case, even medical diagnostics would be useless. You gotta be kidding.

Good lord, that is one stupid post you just made. Once again, I suspect, going for the one-size-fits-all cliches that you hope will help you sail past the facts that you cannot manage to deal with. I am not surprised at your sloppiness, seeing as there are so many facts and points of logic that you cannot deal with, you are probably a bit overwhelmed.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124453 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists were in darkness for centuries prior to the enlightenment which occurred from the bosom of Christianity. Study history. Atheism has contributed NOTHING to science or world progress.
Nope.

Science was the second bite of the apple.

That is why you guys keep running from it.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#124454 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
It seems we have found a major contradiction with the theory. If fossils only form by catastrophy, how you even have a geologic column? If rocks are dated by index fossils primarily, how could you have index fossils if fossil formation is catastrophic and not based on "layered strata".
It doesn't take much to cover a trilobite.

Just how big do you think these catastrophes need to be for most index fossils?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostratigraphy

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124455 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
It seems we have found a major contradiction with the theory. If fossils only form by catastrophy, how you even have a geologic column? If rocks are dated by index fossils primarily, how could you have index fossils if fossil formation is catastrophic and not based on "layered strata".
References please!! WHERE do you get the idea that fossils form only by catastrophe??

Or, just admit you are lying, it's much easier.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124456 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I can. It's called a catastrophy. Yours is supposed to be time sequenced layers. Mine is supposed to be catastrophy. Yours says they were layed down in depths over a long periods of time in regular intervals. My says they were basically wound up where they did based on criteria relevant to catastrophy which may be weight, habitat, mobility, unknown factors but mostly all during the same time frame.

To bad for you and your argument that this isn't true.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> I still don't see how you can have a reliable dateable geologic column if fossils only form as a result of catastrophy.

Maybe this would help:

http://www.amazon.com/Geology-Dummies-Alecia-...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124457 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
It seems we have found a major contradiction with the theory.

Where do you get this nonsense?

Urban Cowboy wrote:
If fossils only form by catastrophy, how you even have a geologic column?

Catastrophe happens a lot but is not necessary. Deposition is going on all the time for about 70% of the earth.

Urban Cowboy wrote:
If rocks are dated by index fossils primarily, how could you have index fossils if fossil formation is catastrophic and not based on "layered strata".

Where do you get this nonsense?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124458 Mar 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Science was the second bite of the apple.
That is why you guys keep running from it.

talk about revisionist history!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#124459 Mar 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
To bad for you and your argument that this isn't true.
<quoted text>
Maybe this would help:
http://www.amazon.com/Geology-Dummies-Alecia-...
I don't think that will help him. Is there one that's for creatards specifically? You know, filled full of ambiguity and bad English.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124460 Mar 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, decisions made on partial information are NOT better than decisions made on no information? Since in the real world, ALL decisions are based on partial information, you would have to be claiming that choices are useless. Might as well act randomly. That is what you are actually claiming.
The appearance of an individual - health, symmetry, demeanor, vitality, etc, tell us NOTHING about the genetic state? Yeah right. If that were the case, even medical diagnostics would be useless. You gotta be kidding.
Good lord, that is one stupid post you just made. Once again, I suspect, going for the one-size-fits-all cliches that you hope will help you sail past the facts that you cannot manage to deal with. I am not surprised at your sloppiness, seeing as there are so many facts and points of logic that you cannot deal with, you are probably a bit overwhelmed.
Chimney, believe me...I've heard all of your canned rhetoric...
Atheists regurgitate it ad nauseum, every time thinking they're coming up with something original.
The only proper way to utilize science is as a tool... not as a pretense to justify your religion.
Candid acknowledgement of your profound ignorance would be helpful.
You don't understand the difference between conjecture and proof.
Evolution is not observed... It is IMAGINED.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#124461 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Chimney, believe me...I've heard all of your canned rhetoric...
Atheists regurgitate it ad nauseum, every time thinking they're coming up with something original.
The only proper way to utilize science is as a tool... not as a pretense to justify your religion.
Candid acknowledgement of your profound ignorance would be helpful.
You don't understand the difference between conjecture and proof.
Evolution is not observed... It is IMAGINED.
So you are just a projector.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124462 Mar 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are just a projector.
I am merely looking at this objectively.
Evolution is nothing more than a huge collection of stories founded on metaphysical assumptions.
You can't experimentally demonstrate that any of your proposed mechanisms are possible.
If Lenski is the best you can come up with, you're pretty desperate. His 20 year experiment does not prove that man evolved from a microbe.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#124463 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I am merely looking at this objectively.
Evolution is nothing more than a huge collection of stories founded on metaphysical assumptions.
You can't experimentally demonstrate that any of your proposed mechanisms are possible.
If Lenski is the best you can come up with, you're pretty desperate. His 20 year experiment does not prove that man evolved from a microbe.
The second part of your post makes the first line a lie.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124464 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Chimney, believe me...I've heard all of your canned rhetoric...
Atheists regurgitate it ad nauseum, every time thinking they're coming up with something original.
The only proper way to utilize science is as a tool... not as a pretense to justify your religion.
Candid acknowledgement of your profound ignorance would be helpful.
You don't understand the difference between conjecture and proof.
Evolution is not observed... It is IMAGINED.

This is not a theistic or atheistic question. It is a scientific issue. Science has its own criteria that religion does not match up with.

Evolution IS observed. You can live in denial of this simple fact or you can just embrace the fact as one of the miracles of Gods universe.

The theory of evolution is always a work in progress, just as the scientific method demands.

And not to be critical, but you are the one NOT providing evidence, NOT providing science, and demanding that your religion a sounder basis for science than observed reality.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124465 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I am merely looking at this objectively.
Evolution is nothing more than a huge collection of stories founded on metaphysical assumptions.
You can't experimentally demonstrate that any of your proposed mechanisms are possible.
If Lenski is the best you can come up with, you're pretty desperate. His 20 year experiment does not prove that man evolved from a microbe.

No, you are looking at this completely emotionally and filled with fear that your religious views are wrong. You are right to be afraid, your views on religion ARE wrong. But that is not Gods fault, nor the bibles fault or even sciences fault. The responsibility for that falls on you.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124466 Mar 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they are in a particular order, and its one you cannot explain if all these creatures were supposed to be alive at the same time.
Only evolution explains the order we see. Creationism cannot, and your dancing around the point for the last few days instead of providing a credible answer highlights this deficiency beautifully.
Chimney, you've been blindly guzzling the atheist kool-aid.
The predictable sequences of fossils to which you refer is selective reporting of data.
It does not exist in the real world... Only in your evolution fairytale books.
Many examples can be cited that contradict the contention that radiometrically dated strata confirm a geologic column. Over 80% of the earth's surface does not contain even three layers of rock in the predicted "order" as defined by evolutionists.*. In some areas, mountain sediments are "inverted" with older sediments positioned above more "recent" formations.*

*John Woodmorappe, "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformatarian Geologic Column: A Quantatative Assessment," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 1(P.O. box 14016, Terre Haute, Indiana 4703: June 1981), pp.46-71.

*"Mountain Building in the Mediterranean," (News of the Week section under "Marine Biology"), Science News, Vol. 98, No.16 (October 17, 1970), p. 316

Now I already know what your response will be. This contradicts your religion, so you will vehemently try to refute this research, saying that it came from a "creationist website" and is therefore invalid. I know all of your strategies. They are not aimed at discovery of truth.

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 Subduction Zone 70,420
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 12 min Subduction Zone 73
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 34 min Eagle 12 30,417
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 55 min Out of the Night 3,823
G-d versus Evolution? 1 hr Al Caplan 33
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 1 hr Out of the Night 78
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 10 hr Paul Scott 228
More from around the web