Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180376 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124722 Mar 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
...Thus
for example, a great English traveller, who lived for a considerable time on the West Coast of Africa, says:I consider the negro to be a lower species of man, and cannot make up my mind
to look upon him as a man and a brother, for the gorilla would
then also have to be admitted in to the family.
Blah blah blah.

Yes, no form of racism or attitude of superiority ever existed among humans until after Charles Darwin. We all know that in the centuries and millennia prior, all humans regarded each other as racial equals.

Don't be an idiot.

Evolution was merely retrofitted to already existing prejudices, and you know it. And any evolutionary SCIENTIST today can tell you why these prejudices are shallow and misguided.

In any case, you are merely arguing from consequences (imagined ones), and that is a fail.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124723 Mar 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The "perfect" sequencing of fossils that you imagine is the result of filtering of data.
That is scientific fraud.
Good one.

Its all a conspiracy.

That is always the final, desperately stupid argument of creationists, faced with the overwhelming evidence that they are wrong.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#124724 Mar 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And Haeckel-->
Please see here-->
http://www.discovery.org/a/3935#text1
And here--->
http://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven
----------
Haeckel (1868/1876) theorized 12 species of living humans, at varying distances from the apes.4 He explained (vol 2, pp. 492493):
If one must draw a sharp boundary between other primates and humans, it has to be drawn between the most highly developed and civilized man on the one hand, and the rudest savages on the other, and the latter have to be classed with the animals.
This is, in fact, the opinion of many travelers, who have long
watched the lowest human races in their native countries. Thus
for example, a great English traveller, who lived for a considerable time on the West Coast of Africa, says:I consider the negro to be a lower species of man, and cannot make up my mind
to look upon him as a man and a brother, for the gorilla would
then also have to be admitted in to the family.
Quoted in -->
Marks J. Why be against Darwin? Creationism, racism, and the roots of anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012;149 Suppl 55:95-104. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22163. Epub 2012 Nov 2. Review. PubMed PMID: 23124443.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
A pdf of this reference-->
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/2012%20Y...
----------
BTW
Haeckel admitted to fraud...so would you say that's another example of evolutionists fixing their own fraud issues?
----------
Add to the list ...ever growing...of evo-duds-->
The Monera Fallacy
Yes, the values of the christians in the 19th century were quite bigoted. Church-going gentlemen were generally considered to be the most civilized and most superior humans. Next came church-going women, and farther down the line came men and women of other races.

But I wouldn't fault the individuals so much as I would fault the culture they found themselves in. They were steeped in nearly 2000 years of church dogma.

But why are you trying to equate the christian values of the 19th century to the scientific standards of the 21st century? You must be very upset about the fraudulent drawings of Lewenhook, yes?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124725 Mar 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good one.
Its all a conspiracy.
That is always the final, desperately stupid argument of creationists, faced with the overwhelming evidence that they are wrong.
No, it's not a "conspiracy"... It's junk science which has been practiced for over 150 years. Anyone who would say that evolutions fits perfectly with the fossil record is engaging in wishful thinking.
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124726 Mar 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry mate, not hoaxes. Stop lying.
You have precisely ONE serious hoax, Piltdown Man, and that was exposed by evolutionary scientists themselves.
Lets give a parallel example for you. In the last few decades, there was a lot of debate among scientists about the "out of Africa" versus the "multi-regional hypothesis". Each side had what it thought was reasonable evidence to support its position.
In the end, Out of Africa won because new evidence gave it more likelihood. But with a twist, as elements of Neanderthal and Denisovan Man appear to have found there way into some human populations. This is all fascinating stuff.
But sooner or later, along comes a creatard to misrepresent the story, claim that one or other side were faking their evidence (and they are all evolutionists, so that morphs to "evolutionist lies") and you guys entirely lose the plot. No wait, that's too charitable. What you do is exploit the uncertainties and development of thought in biology as in all science, to twist the plot deliberately, and misrepresent it as fraud and lies.
Its despicable and dumb. But feel free to continue, as science gets on with the job of discovering the truth while parasitical creatards go after every scrap they can make a meal of, and you swallow their meager rations uncritically while convincing yourself its a banquet.
Creationists don't need to make stuff up about evo-stuff up's

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/feb/19...

Same story here-->
http://www.wnd.com/2005/02/29004/

Please don't forget Raptorex and the eagerness to publish in National Geographic despite prior knowledge that there were issues regarding the authenticity of the fossil

You are attempting to defend the indefensible...

Human feet on Lucy models

That's fraud...any way you look at it

Please do not pretend that fraud is not a common feature in evo-world
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124728 Mar 23, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the values of the christians in the 19th century were quite bigoted. Church-going gentlemen were generally considered to be the most civilized and most superior humans. Next came church-going women, and farther down the line came men and women of other races.
But I wouldn't fault the individuals so much as I would fault the culture they found themselves in. They were steeped in nearly 2000 years of church dogma.
But why are you trying to equate the christian values of the 19th century to the scientific standards of the 21st century? You must be very upset about the fraudulent drawings of Lewenhook, yes?
I am sorry...

You can't bring Christianity into this

The Bible....unchanging Word of God
..has clearly stated that we are all one blood

We are created in God's image

We are ALL descendants of Adam and Eve

----------

I have provided a link displaying 21st century textbooks with Haeckel's drawings

Do go back and have a look at what it is you are valiantly defending

There is so much evo-propaganda around and evo-tards are absolutely sloshing wet with it

As HTS says 'drunk on evo-Koolaid'

Half this debate is education

Or rather, re-education....
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124729 Mar 23, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the values of the christians in the 19th century were quite bigoted. Church-going gentlemen were generally considered to be the most civilized and most superior humans. Next came church-going women, and farther down the line came men and women of other races.
But I wouldn't fault the individuals so much as I would fault the culture they found themselves in. They were steeped in nearly 2000 years of church dogma.
But why are you trying to equate the christian values of the 19th century to the scientific standards of the 21st century? You must be very upset about the fraudulent drawings of Lewenhook, yes?
Why do you keep defending Ernie Haeckle?
He was an undisputed con artist.
Nevertheless, Ernie maintains a place of honor among the high priests of Darwinism.
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124730 Mar 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah blah blah.
Yes, no form of racism or attitude of superiority ever existed among humans until after Charles Darwin. We all know that in the centuries and millennia prior, all humans regarded each other as racial equals.
Don't be an idiot.
Evolution was merely retrofitted to already existing prejudices, and you know it. And any evolutionary SCIENTIST today can tell you why these prejudices are shallow and misguided.
In any case, you are merely arguing from consequences (imagined ones), and that is a fail.
Racism increased by an order of magnitude AFTER Origins was published

Just check the title itself....

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

----------
Also a must read--->
http://creation.com/darwinisms-influence-on-m...

----------
These examples are not the result of believing that we are all one blood--->

http://creation.com/ota-benga-the-pygmy-put-o...

http://creation.com/abraham-ulrikab

http://creation.com/darwins-bodysnatchers-new...

----------
Jonathan Marks is worth reading
He is an evolutionist, biological anthropologist

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/2012%20Y...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124731 Mar 23, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I checked, it was over 50,000! But never mind the lab work - what about the number of "theoretical" generatons since the "time" bacteria first "evolved"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-ter...
How could any "sane" evolutionist believe that bacteria could ever evolve into anything other than bacteria? They will just say it did because that's what the theory says and that's a fact and it can never be demonstrated or observed but still it happened because its a fact and we say so.
The entire evolution of man supposedly occurred over about 350,000 generations. That would have required millions of changes in DNA.

Lenski's experiments after 50,000 generations are not convincing.... If anything, they prove the impossibility of evolution.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124732 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I know your memory is not all that good, but I did already explain both.
Remember my rule on evidence. You cannot demand evidence until you learn what evidence is.
If you want answers to your questions a second time over that would not be at my convenience, so to demand answers you must take the class first.
If you keep refusing I will simply point out the fact that I already answered your questions.
SZ, your problem is that you think that you can prove a scientific theory only positive evidence.
Any false theory can be propped up by evidence.

Example: Theory... Smoking is a healthy habit.
Evidence: Smoking is associated with a low incidence of Parkinson's
Smoking is associated with reduced stress.
Nicotine is associated with a reduced incidence of Alzheimer's
Smoking is associated with reduced obesity
Obesity causes heart attacks.
Therefore, smoking reduces heart attacks.

This is exactly the way you prop up evolution. You filter evidence.
That is not science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124733 Mar 23, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
If your brother loved you he'd beat your stupid ass all over the house... That being said why don't you take a look in history at how many times the evolutionist has been caught red handed in dishonesty then come back and tell us all about how the creationist are the dishonest ones....
He knows who would come out on top in a physical confrontation, he is not a fool like you.

So, since evolution has had a couple of frauds involved with it it must be false? Then be that flawed reasoning Christianity is proved false hundreds of times over.

For every fraud associated with evolution I can name ten associated with Christianity, and I can do that without even trying.

There have been thousands of frauds tied to Christianity. Many of them many times worse than any fraud tied to evolution.

My brother may have a false belief in creationism, but at least he is not a total idiot like you are.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124734 Mar 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No, it's not a "conspiracy"... It's junk science which has been practiced for over 150 years. Anyone who would say that evolutions fits perfectly with the fossil record is engaging in wishful thinking.
Come on How's That, you know that is not the case.

Evolution is based upon the scientific method. You are claiming a conspiracy since all science supports evolution.

Are you going to continue to mumble in your cereal or do you care to learn something.
defender

Tucker, GA

#124735 Mar 23, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>Last time I checked, it was over 50,000! But never mind the lab work - what about the number of "theoretical" generatons since the "time" bacteria first "evolved"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-ter...

How could any "sane" evolutionist believe that bacteria could ever evolve into anything other than bacteria? They will just say it did because that's what the theory says and that's a fact and it can never be demonstrated or observed but still it happened because its a fact and we say so.
Amen... True as always Cowboy!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124736 Mar 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ, your problem is that you think that you can prove a scientific theory only positive evidence.
Any false theory can be propped up by evidence.
Example: Theory... Smoking is a healthy habit.
Evidence: Smoking is associated with a low incidence of Parkinson's
Smoking is associated with reduced stress.
Nicotine is associated with a reduced incidence of Alzheimer's
Smoking is associated with reduced obesity
Obesity causes heart attacks.
Therefore, smoking reduces heart attacks.
This is exactly the way you prop up evolution. You filter evidence.
That is not science.
Now if you knew the definition of scientific evidence you would know that what you said is an idiotic lie.

And you have yet to find any evidence against evolution. You have made false claims against evolution that have been shown to be wrong.

Here, I will give you a freeby. Evidence can either support or oppose a theory. We have even given you examples of what would be evidence against evolution if it was found. Evidence against a theory can debunk it.

So let's hear your so called evidence against evolution.

Please don't list "evidence" that has already been debunked such as your failed probability arguments.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124737 Mar 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep defending Ernie Haeckle?
He was an undisputed con artist.
Nevertheless, Ernie maintains a place of honor among the high priests of Darwinism.
And yet no matter how many times you are challenged you cannot list what he supposedly did wrong.

When you claim that someone is a thief, but cannot say what he stole, when you claim that someone is a murderer, but cannot tell us who he killed, or if you call someone a con artist, but cannot tell us how he conned anyone, then you are guilty of making false allegations.

Exactly what did Haeckel do that was wrong?
defender

Tucker, GA

#124738 Mar 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>Lets see, according to your own over inflated claims, there is

Piltdown. One definite fraud for sure (but corrected by evolutionists)

Nebraska. Never taken seriously by scientists and vastly overblown by creatards in their desperation to find something.

Haekel. Optimistic exaggeration on his part morphed into sinister overblown claims by creatards...while much of his underlying reasoning and observation is in fact intact.

Yeah, brilliant. All claims fixed by evolutionists themselves, in science's own self correcting process.

You keep on with these century old wankerfests because its all you've got. Get real.
Umm... You know some of your buddies on here still believe Haekel's optimistic exaggeration (outright lie) about human beings having fish gills in early development right? And that it's still taught in text books as truth... But oh well guess that dishonesty doesn't count huh?
If you want some modern lies just pick up a copy of Scientific American or log on to Talkorigins ... Lots of fun on the bun!!!
defender

Tucker, GA

#124739 Mar 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>No, they say it because population geneticists do not have a problem with it. Also because we have good evidence now that the earliest eukarayotes developed in a form of communal coming togehter of once free living bacteria - mitochondria and chloroplasts, and even some ciliate structures, show this clear signature.

Etc.
Lie... Flat out... Stop it..

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124740 Mar 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The entire evolution of man supposedly occurred over about 350,000 generations. That would have required millions of changes in DNA.
Lenski's experiments after 50,000 generations are not convincing.... If anything, they prove the impossibility of evolution.
No, that is not how long the entire evolution of man took. That is only the time period for man to evolve from our common ancestor with the chimpanzee.

We have already gone over the math in that and the number of changes necessary was well within the realm of possibility.

Do we have to go over the math again? Really?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124741 Mar 23, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie... Flat out... Stop it..
Not a lie.

Lying is what creationists do time after time.

I can count the number of times that people associated with evolution have been caught lying or committing outright fraud on the fingers of one hand.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124742 Mar 23, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm... You know some of your buddies on here still believe Haekel's optimistic exaggeration (outright lie) about human beings having fish gills in early development right? And that it's still taught in text books as truth... But oh well guess that dishonesty doesn't count huh?
If you want some modern lies just pick up a copy of Scientific American or log on to Talkorigins ... Lots of fun on the bun!!!
Haeckel was right about the existence of "gill slits", though that is an over simplification. The proper term is pharyngeal arches, or branchial arches. They develop into gills in fish and into different structures in tetrapods.

Here is an excellent article that explains why there is nothing wrong with calling them "gill slits" even though we know that they never do act as gills:

http://pigeonchess.com/2012/05/31/gill-slits-...

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
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 21 min Endofdays 777
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr marksman11 162,968
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Regolith Based Li... 78,489
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 hr Science 1,322
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr Science 32,431
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Aug 13 Science 222,113
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web