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
121,281 - 121,300 of 172,452 Comments Last updated 53 min ago

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124460
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124462
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124466
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124467
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.
So, you agree that viruses and bacteria evolve, but you also say evolution doesn't occur. Care to explain how something that does occur doesn't occur?
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124468
Mar 21, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Woodmorappe? The guy who tries to say how many animals were on Noah's ark and what they were and what that would have weighed?

Remind us where you got your biological education. I seem to have forgotten.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124469
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
Dogen, you don't intimidate me in the slightest.
Engaging in these discussions has only reaffirmed in my mind the abject stupidity of the Darwinian hypothesis.
You guys rant and scream and pretend to make points... yet it is so pathetically obvious that you are only trying to justify your worldview with pseudoscience.
Dogen, in all of your theatrics you have not presented a single piece of scientific evidence in support of evolution. When points are made that refute your beliefs, you rant and scream, hurl insults, and imagine that you've made a point.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124470
Mar 21, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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.
So you have no peer reviewed, scientific paper to support your assertion.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124471
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you agree that viruses and bacteria evolve, but you also say evolution doesn't occur. Care to explain how something that does occur doesn't occur?
Evolution is not simple "change"
Virus and bacteria change.
They do not evolve into other forms of life.
No one has ever disputed principles of selective breeding.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124472
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Change is observed. No one has ever disputed that.
Evolution, ie, the gradualistic development of novel traits, has never been observed.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124473
Mar 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have no peer reviewed, scientific paper to support your assertion.
I gave you the references. What's wrong with them?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Dogen 136,131
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Lawrence Wolf 114,800
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 9 hr Zog Has-fallen 343
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 10 hr TedHOhio 154
Science News (Sep '13) Tue positronium 2,846
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) Aug 25 ChristineM 286
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••