Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 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.

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124494 Mar 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would I intimidate you? What would make you come to the conclusion that I was attempting to do so.
<quoted text>
I am aware of how cognitive dissonance works.
<quoted text>
I am aware of how projection works.
<quoted text>
This is false as anyone looking through these thread can see for themselves. Does being willing to lie for your god make you a better fundie?
<quoted text>
You might be right. Why don't you try making a point that refutes my beliefs and we can monitor my reaction. That is, after all, what I have been asking for over the last few years.
All of this is an aside to what I stated in my last post.
There I pointed out you were arguing out of emotion and not rationality and mentioned that you were right to fear for your religious views when you find that science refutes them.
I also asked you to man up and accept your own culpability in this situation.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Dogem
Why do you keep quoting yourself?

It rather narcissistic
And you make me suffer twice

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124495 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Uniformitarianism....
That's your evidence
You just get dumb and dumber dont you?
Just because someone says so, SubDUD
Doesn't make it so
http://creation.com/early-arguments-for-deep-...
http://creation.com/flood-transported-quartzi...
http://creation.com/african-planation-surface
http://creation.com/a-giant-cause
No, not just because somebody says so is not the reason I believe geologists. It is all repeatable science.

You on the other hand are guilty of that crime and linked a group of idiots that is guilty of that crime too.

Not one of those articles is backed up by an real science at all. They took a cursory look at some rocks and tried to explain it through a book of myths. Now that is about as dumb as a bad of hammers.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124496 Mar 21, 2013
It is always fun to go to creatard.com for a few good laughs. It is amazing how idiotically wrong they are about science. Not only their own conclusions but what they claim other scientists believe.

The only chance to "win" an argument is to build a strawman of others beliefs and try to argue against that.

Forget all that garbage right now. Tow words that cause creatards to soil their pants with idiocy:

Incised meanders.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#124497 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.
But, that doesn't explain why various organisms only get found in particular strata. A flood like you describe would not do that. At least, there are no known laws of physics that would support such a "sorting," as creationists call it.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#124498 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How was flood geology debunked before Darwin?
So, you know nothing of the history of geology.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124499 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Uniformitarianism....
That's your evidence
You just get dumb and dumber dont you?
Just because someone says so, SubDUD
Doesn't make it so
http://creation.com/early-arguments-for-deep-...
http://creation.com/flood-transported-quartzi...
http://creation.com/african-planation-surface
http://creation.com/a-giant-cause
Yep - Creation.com is a legit scientific source - you are absolutely right to quote it.

From your last link

'Across the ocean, the tiny island of Staff, off the west coast of Scotland (near Mull and Iona), has similar rock outcrops.1,2 It is home to Fingal’s Cave (pictured). According to local folklore, the Irish giant Finn MacCool built the causeway so he could cross the sea to Scotland and do battle with his rival giant, Finn Gall.3 Tourist interpretive centres usually incorporate folk legends into their literature but are loath to present the true biblical perspective.'

Get a grip !!!!
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124500 Mar 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are quote mining again.
He was lamenting how little the extremely powerful tool of evolution had been used in the past for those purposes. That is not the case anymore.
Too bad you did not do a proper quote of him with links to his complete speech so that you would realize how creatard.com had misled you by lying to you again.
Let's see his complete speech then

Here's what I linked and its not from creation.com

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-cr...

"In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin's and Alfred Russel Wallace's evolutionary theories.

The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings: the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.

Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss. "

But naturally, creation.com has some scathing things to say as well...

----------

So do tell

How does evolution help science?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124501 Mar 21, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep - Creation.com is a legit scientific source - you are absolutely right to quote it.
From your last link
'Across the ocean, the tiny island of Staff, off the west coast of Scotland (near Mull and Iona), has similar rock outcrops.1,2 It is home to Fingal’s Cave (pictured). According to local folklore, the Irish giant Finn MacCool built the causeway so he could cross the sea to Scotland and do battle with his rival giant, Finn Gall.3 Tourist interpretive centres usually incorporate folk legends into their literature but are loath to present the true biblical perspective.'
Get a grip !!!!
That's nice

What's your point?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124502 Mar 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
It is always fun to go to creatard.com for a few good laughs. It is amazing how idiotically wrong they are about science. Not only their own conclusions but what they claim other scientists believe.
The only chance to "win" an argument is to build a strawman of others beliefs and try to argue against that.
Forget all that garbage right now. Tow words that cause creatards to soil their pants with idiocy:
Incised meanders.
How's that an issue?
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124503 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice
What's your point?
That you still quote Creation.com as a legit scientific source - even though it includes crap like I referenced.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124504 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How's that an issue?
Let me guess...

You will thank me for the free plug (don't get count it as positive advertising)

You will say Creation.com is reputable , even though it dismisses all evidence that is contrary to its 'SCIENCE RACIST BIGOTRY' as the bible has never been proved wrong.

Descend into puerile hand-waving

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#124505 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see his complete speech then
Here's what I linked and its not from creation.com
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-cr...
"In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin's and Alfred Russel Wallace's evolutionary theories.
The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings: the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.
Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss. "
But naturally, creation.com has some scathing things to say as well...
That was an *OPINION* piece by Philip Skell -- who is a CHEMIST. Not a BIOchemist, mind you.

He is also a Creationist with an axe to grind with respect to anything that threatens his view of a LITERAL, INERRANT interpretation of the Bible.

You know....kind of like.....YOU.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124507 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see his complete speech then
Here's what I linked and its not from creation.com
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-cr...
"In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin's and Alfred Russel Wallace's evolutionary theories.
The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings: the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.
Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss. "
But naturally, creation.com has some scathing things to say as well...
----------
So do tell
How does evolution help science?
You must be more specific. Of course it helps find new vaccines in medicine these days. Understanding geology, which is not evolution but is a related science is extremely helpful to you. You could not drive to work, nor would you have anything to drive to work to in without geology.

And no, cratard.com has some idiotic things to say.

You were caught in another quote mine retard. That is a form of lying. You better start recanting all of your lies now. Otherwise you will have a whole lot of sins that you did not admit to before you die. And you know what that means.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124508 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How's that an issue?
Really, oh wait. you already admitted that you are a total retard about geology.

YEC's cannot explain incised meanders.

Of course they cannot explain the fossil record either so who knows how much poop they actually have in their shorts.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124509 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.
dimwit.

If yo go back to the original claim by UC, it was merely whether there was any validity at all selecting a partner based on perceivable attributes. i.e. whether there was any correlation between what you can sense - health, vitality, strength, intelligence, demeanor, smell, symmetry, beauty...and genetic health.

And the reality is that if there is ANY correlation between ANY of these traits and genetic fitness, then OF COURSE there is. Meaning selection based on these is going to be of some value.

Are you seriously trying to claim that this is wild evolutionary conjecture? Its true regardless of evolution.

What utter rubbish you spout. If US's claim was true, then all principles of animal husbandry - which goes back thousands of years before any evolution theory - would be false as well.

Its just lunatic. And your cut-and-paste creatard responses are just making you look stupid. You are not even looking at the issue, merely taking every chance you can to spout your "evolution is atheism" nonsense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124510 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How was flood geology debunked before Darwin?
hahahha!

Even Leonardo da Vinci debunked it by LOOKING at the way shells were placed in the rocks in the Italian hills. 500 years ago.

Geologists looking at patterns of deposition etc had killed YEC before Darwin was even born. Nobody outside the local parish took YEC seriously. Nor do today.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124511 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.
Metaphysics according to HTS:

1. exponential reproduction with imperfect heredity OBSERVED
2. competition for finite resources OBSERVED
3. differential survival rates based on variation OBSERVED

If you think that is metaphysical, then you think everything beyond the tip of your nose is metaphysical.

We also have:

1. changes in the fossil record through the strata consistent with evolutionary predictions OBSERVED
2. visible changes in species today in response to environmental changes OBSERVED
3. beneficial mutations resulting in improved survival OBSERVED
4. the nested hierarchy of variation preserved in the genome OBSERVED

No metaphysics. Just science.
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124512 Mar 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Metaphysics according to HTS:
1. exponential reproduction with imperfect heredity OBSERVED
2. competition for finite resources OBSERVED
3. differential survival rates based on variation OBSERVED
If you think that is metaphysical, then you think everything beyond the tip of your nose is metaphysical.
We also have:
1. changes in the fossil record through the strata consistent with evolutionary predictions OBSERVED
2. visible changes in species today in response to environmental changes OBSERVED
3. beneficial mutations resulting in improved survival OBSERVED
4. the nested hierarchy of variation preserved in the genome OBSERVED
No metaphysics. Just science.
Hey

What are these myriad evidences to which you refer?

Yesterday there was nothing

Today

there's all this evidence.....

What is it?

Do fill me in.....

To what changes do you refer in the fossil record?

I hate missing stuff

Looks like I've missed heaps

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124513 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
I hate missing stuff
Looks like I've missed heaps
Such as the last two centuries of science.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124514 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
To what changes do you refer in the fossil record?
You have to be kidding.

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
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 20 min U think Im wrong 926
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 23 min It aint necessari... 205,412
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Aura Mytha 43,374
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 18,682
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) 2 hr Chazofsaints 37
Questions about first life Sun Upright Scientist 18
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Sun Dogen 151,492
More from around the web