Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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

Aranda, Australia

#125000 Mar 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
More like a social topic.
Come on. This ain't exactly rocket science.
Good

Then you agree that creation.com is a good reference
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125001 Mar 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
Russel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =GDBJTGfZnEAXX
I don't watch trash
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125002 Mar 24, 2013
In response to defending Haeckel, SZ says this--->
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, because he was correct in some of his claims.
Like Hitler?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not an all or nothing idiot like creatards are. A person can be correct in some views and wrong in others.
For example Newton was very correct on his physics, for which he is rightfully famous. He was not correct in his beliefs on alchemy, for which no one pays any attention.
And then he rejects ANYONE who is a scientist who also believes in creation and is a Christian

It would not take me long at all to gather up the evidence from his numerous previous posts where this trait is displayed in glaring black and white
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#125003 Mar 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Russell...
You're being very nice to LowellGuy... attempting to spare him embarrassment.
He's drunk on evo-koolaid and needs to sober up.
He has peach fuzz...what am I to do?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125004 Mar 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If tiktaalik and homo erectus are all you can come up with... You're really desperate.
Only one was requested. I gave more than twice what was asked for.

Damn creatards, always moving the goal posts.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125005 Mar 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
Nope, be definition he is right.

Since evolution is constantly occurring technically all fossils are transitional fossils.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125006 Mar 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That is dogma, not science.
And you are of course an idiot too.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125007 Mar 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
So SZ
Still ignoring inconvenient posts?

Just to remind you of the horror...for lazy bones...>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23414624
Hey tard, why did you link the same abstract twice?

If you read the articles on how the chemicals react they do not react to cells. They react to proteins associated with those cells. And they do not claim actual cells, they always use wording like this:

" exhibited organelle-like microstructures". Never organelle, always organelle-like.

I bet that you still don't get it.

It is an interesting problem in paleontology and nothing more.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125008 Mar 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
In response to defending Haeckel, SZ says this--->
<quoted text>
Like Hitler?
Well since Hitler was one of you guys I suppose you could try to defend him in the same way, but I wouldn't.

But since you are claiming that Hitler was right sometimes how was he right?
<quoted text>
And then he rejects ANYONE who is a scientist who also believes in creation and is a Christian
It would not take me long at all to gather up the evidence from his numerous previous posts where this trait is displayed in glaring black and white
Now that is a lie. I have said countless times that when creationism is not involved there are some creationist scientists who can do science. What they cannot do is science involving creationism. They fall flat on their faces every time they try it. And they know it. Thanks to you we now know how Sanford tried to avoid the peer review process when he published his book.

I have to thank you for that since I did not know the details of how dishonest Sanford was.

So are you done lying for the night? I doubt it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125009 Mar 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't watch trash
That must make it rather difficult to shave in the morning.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125010 Mar 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Definition:
Evolution: the change in a population over time.
.
That is not the definition of evolution.
Are you telling me that because my children are different than me that they have "evolved"?
How about answering my question about sharks?
Has every generation for the past 300 million years been evolving into transitional species?
You said that every offspring is transitional.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125011 Mar 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the definition of evolution.
Are you telling me that because my children are different than me that they have "evolved"?
How about answering my question about sharks?
Has every generation for the past 300 million years been evolving into transitional species?
You said that every offspring is transitional.
Yes, and yes.

Boy, these are easy questions. Do you have any more?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125012 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and yes.
Boy, these are easy questions. Do you have any more?
That is dogma, not science.
You have no scientific evidence of any of those claims.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125013 Mar 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That is dogma, not science.
You have no scientific evidence of any of those claims.
Actually we do have scientific evidence.

Too bad I can't show it to you.

Or rather I won't show it to you until you pass your evidence class.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#125014 Mar 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the definition of evolution.
Are you telling me that because my children are different than me that they have "evolved"?
How about answering my question about sharks?
Has every generation for the past 300 million years been evolving into transitional species?
You said that every offspring is transitional.
Prove present day sharks and prehistoric sharks are the same species, show they can interbreed. I'll wait ...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125015 Mar 24, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove present day sharks and prehistoric sharks are the same species, show they can interbreed. I'll wait ...
Creatards don't have to prove anything. All they have to do is to ask stupid questions and make unsupported claims.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#125016 Mar 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the definition of evolution.
Are you telling me that because my children are different than me that they have "evolved"?
How about answering my question about sharks?
Has every generation for the past 300 million years been evolving into transitional species?
You said that every offspring is transitional.
So much ignorance in just one post. Going for the record? Because you'll have to do WAY better than that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125018 Mar 25, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Both Nazi and Soviet states were very much inspired by Darwinism...(shh this fact makes our evolutionist friends really mad)...
I hope you read this properly, and get my point.

Arguing from consequences - meaning "I reject this scientific theory because I do not like where I think it leads" is NEVER a valid rational argument. Truth is truth, deal with it.

But your claims are objectively false anyway, because somebody somewhere has claimed just about everything is for or against just about everything.

For example:

Hitler claims his feud against the Jews was backed by the Bible and could easily quote Martin Luther to that effect.

The white Africaaners believed the Bible explicitly backed their racist ideology in South Africa, and they were a very religious bunch.

Many socialists and communists have claimed that they are carrying out the Christian message of humility, sharing, and anti-greed.

----------
On the other hand, there are also great champions of freedom who were either atheist, or Deists with beliefs fully compatible with both God and evolution.

Jefferson and Franklin were Deists, and nothing like what you would call a Christian. Yet they were anti-totalitarian.

Karl Popper, an evolutionist, and a philosopher of science, was also a great champion of the OPEN SOCIETY, and against all top-down closed structures such as fascism and communism. For good reasons.

Ayn Rand, darling of the religious right today, was avidly ANTI fascism and communism. She was also militantly ANTI religion and vocally ATHEIST. She was pro-freedom, individualism, capitalism, and limited government. And HATED religion. That's the bit Fox News likes to gloss over.

A true rational skeptic, that is to say, a scientific thinker, knows that nobody else has all the answers either. Not Jesus, not Marx, not Hitler, and not Darwin or Einstein either. We are skeptical of grand claims by nature. Thus we do not accept top-down centralised control either of economies or minds. Nor fixed dogma in science.

Everybody has to figure things out for themselves, and nobody gets it 100% right. That also makes a rational skeptic virtually immune to grand claims that whole sections of the population are The Enemy (Jews, heathens, atheists, the landlords, liberals, you name it), and its generally only the dogmatic who make such claims and demand monstrous action because of it.

So really, you have NO POINT.

You are a Dogmatist trying to claim YOUR dogma is better than Hitler's or Lenin's dogma. Big deal. To me they are ALL dogmas. You might support a slightly more humane one, but you are still off track.

I accept evolution because the evidence supports it. I am not buying your arguments from consequences, they fail logically. I am not buying your dogma. I reject all dogma as a failed approach.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125019 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have proof that every offspring is transitional?
Are you saying that every unchanged offspring of sharks for the past three hundred million years is transitional?
show me a species of shark today that is represented in the fossil record 300 million years ago.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125020 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't need to draw any conclusions.
Gould said that Ernie's teachings set the stage for Hitler.
Your own high priest said it.
We don't have high priests.

We have individuals with opinions that must be backed by facts and are open to critical review before we will take their opinions seriously.

Dogmatists like you do not understand this.

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) 4 min Chimney1 35,079
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Richardfs 14,940
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 199,386
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr ChromiuMan 151,328
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 13 hr DanFromSmithville 36
Ribose can be produced in space Mon JanusBifrons 6
A Simple Simulation Mon JanusBifrons 1
More from around the web