Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 173,750

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." Full Story
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125322 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes / no:
Do living fossils violate the nested hierarchy of evolution?
Answer: no.
Yes / no:
Does evolution demand an expiry date on a species?
Answer: no.
Yes / no:
Do any of your examples appear in the fossil record before any of their possible antecedents?
Answer: no.
End of objection.
Thank you for playing.
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#125323 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
In Bernissart, Belgium
Burial ground for a herd of Iguanodon dinosuars
Drawing of a Jurassic frog at Redpath Museum in Montreal based on This is identical to a tooth from a living Goblin shark----> Coelacanth, as I have been semi-hysterically pointing out almost Angel shark
Guitar fish live off the coast of California
Herring form the Pacific and Atlantic oceans are identical to Fossil Bowfin fish found at Hell Creek Montana, near a T rex----> Sturgeon, paddle fish and alligator gar are forms that have been Modern jawless fish eg lamprey and hag fish look unchanged from modern forms
----------
All 3 groups of fish living today, that is the bony fish, cartilaginous fish and the lawless fish, have been found in the dinosaur layers---->
unchanged when compared to their modern counterparts
Yes / no:
Do living fossils violate the nested hierarchy of evolution?
Answer: no.

Yes / no:
Does evolution demand an expiry date on a species?
Answer: no.

Yes / no:
Do any of your examples appear in the fossil record before any of their possible antecedents?
Answer: no.

End of objection.
Thank you for playing.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125324 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So was the library at Alexandria, and all free inquiry for the next 1000 years.
<quoted text>
Yes, those who ignored prior classical (heathen!)science and used the Bible as the inerrant source of knowledge, decided that the balance of the Biblical evidence was that the Earth is definitely flat.
To the point where they were willing to burn those who disagreed. Whatever else these men were, they were Biblical scholars who believed their very souls and those of their flocks depended on getting such questions right...and they did not agree with your conclusion. They had no other reason to claim the Earth is flat. The Bible said so.
You choose the spherical earth notion only because NON-Biblical evidence has shown beyond all doubt that the Bible interpreting Church elders were WRONG, so you go through the Bible looking for a couple of ambiguous statements that might be consistent with a spherical Earth and then dishonestly claim that is what the Bible said all along! Why was that not clear to the Church for 1000 years?
hahahahaha! You are funny. Science emerged with the weakening of the Christian faith, not because of it. The Renaissance was the REDISCOVERY of the Classical knowledge of the Greek and Romans that Christianity had suppressed for a whole dark millennium. The Enlightenment is characterised by figures who all questioned Biblical doctrine...Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Adams, etc, and scientists who looked at the sky and the rocks and the far corners of the earth INSTEAD of your moldy old book, to find the truth.
You are not content to distort science, so you want to distort history too!
No
Not at all

You are quite wrong

The Enlightenment occurred coincidentally to the Bible becoming more readily available

The argument between Galileo and the church was not science against religion as is erroneously thought

The church had taken on board erroneous Greek philosophy

So Galileo's fight was science vs dud-science

Don't forget it was the churches that founded the major universities of the world like Oxford, Cambridge, Geneva, Harvard and Yale

And I pluck straight from creation.com the following

"The historical basis of modern science depended on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33). For example, evolutionary anthropologist and science writer Loren Eiseley stated:

‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’

See this straight from the horses mouth
http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-...

----------

And this from a more hostile source--->

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/...

ABC of course stands for Anything But Christianity

----------

A Short List Of The Christian Founders Of Modern Science

http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm

----------

Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD – Tihomir Dimitrov

http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/v...

----------

50 Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God by Tihomir Dimitrov

http://www.nobelists.net/

----------

And lastly but not finally

http://creation.com/countering-christophobia
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125325 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so now your island is full of people who are not sure whether dirty Joe's actions are OBJECTIVELY bad or perhaps you are just an over protective daddy.
Lets see, how do we OBJECTIVELY decide?
Lets ask the Group whether we want to live in a place where we all can enjoy happiness rather than misery where possible. I am sure they will all say yes.
But, some happiness comes at a cost to others, some does not.
If I enjoy looking at the night sky, I don't think there is a regime on earth that has objected to that.(Except those damned Christians after Galileo decided to look with a telescope and open his damned big mouth about it)...
Erroneous propaganda
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the other hand, if Joe's happiness requires the sacrifice of little girls, it comes at a cost.
The question is, will dirty Joe's actions harm your little girl? Physically? Emotionally? Perhaps bring difficult consequences later? Evidence suggests so. Molested kids have troubles later.
So Joe's happiness is at the expense of your girl's. And your anger and protectiveness - your misery if you fail to protect her, is also a factor. Your protectiveness is biologically programmed. You, your wife, and your little girl will be miserable and damaged thanks to Joe. Even the other parents and kids on the island will be less happy and secure, letting Joe get away with it.
Who cares about whether God exists, He can take care of Himself. But your little girl cannot.
That is enough. You don't need any better reason, do you? If you want to be happy in a society, you both demand and accept that some rules of conduct are to be praised and others punished.
Objectively, we can see that human happiness depends on it.
BUT AHA!!!! you say. What if we can convince Joe that there is a magical God looking over his shoulder, so that he cannot get away with this behavior even if nobody is looking?
And there you have the reason men invented Gods.
OK

I won't go "Huh?"

Altho'
I do feel like it

Chimney

You do tend to go on a bit

Its very much a special pleading

But unfortunately

God is not quite so convenient

He makes inconvenient demands

Like this stunning hymn by Isaac Watts, 1674-1748

When I survey the wondrous cross
on which the Prince of Glory died;
my richest gain I count but loss,
and pour contempt on all my pride.

2. Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
save in the death of Christ, my God;
all the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to his blood.

3. See, from his head, his hands, his feet,
sorrow and love flow mingled down.
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet,
or thorns compose so rich a crown.

4. Were the whole realm of nature mine,
that were an offering far too small;
love so amazing, so divine,
demands my soul, my life, my all.

That last line--->

"demands my soul, my life, my all"

says it all

He interacts with us on His terms

Not your's or mine

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#125326 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No
Not at all
You are quite wrong
The Enlightenment occurred coincidentally to the Bible becoming more readily available
The argument between Galileo and the church was not science against religion as is erroneously thought
The church had taken on board erroneous Greek philosophy
So Galileo's fight was science vs dud-science
Don't forget it was the churches that founded the major universities of the world like Oxford, Cambridge, Geneva, Harvard and Yale
And I pluck straight from creation.com the following
"The historical basis of modern science depended on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33).

For example, evolutionary anthropologist and science writer Loren Eiseley stated:

‘The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’
See this straight from the horses mouth
http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-...
----------
And this from a more hostile source--->
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/...
ABC of course stands for Anything But Christianity
----------
A Short List Of The Christian Founders Of Modern Science
http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm
----------
Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD – Tihomir Dimitrov
http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/v...
----------
50 Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God by Tihomir Dimitrov
http://www.nobelists.net/
----------
And lastly but not finally
http://creation.com/countering-christophobia
I will ignore your revisionist history and remind you that I have nothing against Christians, just against dumb fundamentalists who maintain against all empirical evidence that YEC is true cos Genesis said so.

Now go back to your lists and see how many of these believing scientists believe THAT!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125327 Mar 26, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
I know that Christians don't think we are out raping and murdering between posts... So what is intended reason for calling us immoral without god? Is it the big secret that we all do believe but just wanna sin? Which can of worms shall we open?
Evidently because they have to have someone or something explain to them what is moral and what is not. It is simply beyond their grasp that some of us have an innate sense of morality and do not need to be told what to do.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#125328 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
I won't go "Huh?"
Altho'
I do feel like it
Chimney
You do tend to go on a bit
Its very much a special pleading
Crap. You say there is no reason to be moral if there is no God.

I have shown you there is plenty of reason, without any supernatural junk at all. The Island was a thought experiment.

I have also shown you that the more atheistic societies disprove your notion that given no belief, people will just descend into amoral chaos.

Your claims are false at every level.

Sorry to "go on" but your claims required some substantial response .

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125329 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no objective basis for morality
None
Exactly what I was referring to. Rusty can't conceive of an innate morality. He can't do it therefore nobody can. Stupid, I know but that how his mind works. And others like him.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125330 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes / no:
Do living fossils violate the nested hierarchy of evolution?
Answer: no.
Yes / no:
Does evolution demand an expiry date on a species?
Answer: no.
Yes / no:
Do any of your examples appear in the fossil record before any of their possible antecedents?
Answer: no.
End of objection.
Thank you for playing.
We're still only talking worms and bugs

I haven't even started on birds and mammals as yet....

----------
Were you aware that an avocet was found at Hell Creek Montana in the same layers as dinosaurs?

Not a half avocet

A complete one

----------

Dr Paul Sereno, University of Chicago has said, "What's becoming apparent is that many of the modern bird groups eg parrots, maybe even penguins and other types of groups like owls, developed earlier in the dinosaur era and we are beginning to pick up their traces. Fragments of skeleton."

Dr Paul Clemens, Professor UC Berkeley has said, "One of the exciting bits of information that's coming out now, one of the students here, Tom Stidham, has been getting through our collection of fossils, and is finding quite a diversity of modern groups of birds....from the late Cretaceous. Tome has had a little article published in Nature, in which he describes a late Cretaceous parrot.

"There are more pieces of information out there, that are being described, written or in review, showing that other kinds of modern birds were present in the late Cretaceous".

See regarding the modern parrot-->

http://www.nature.com/news/1999/990527/full/n...

And here

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n67...

And here-->

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/...

----------
Other scientists have described finding fossils of sandpipers, loons, ducks, flamingos, cormorants and albatross in dino rock layers

--------

In 1998, Tom Stidham reported in Nature that all the modern bird groups may have lived with dinosaurs, based on fossil and genetic evidence

----------

Mammals, anyone?
HTS

Williston, ND

#125331 Mar 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That is simply not true. Professor Whitten is mistaken. It is interesting to note that despite this quote, Professor Whitten seems to have spent a number of years researching the evolution of insecticide resistance in insects.
I think you might be better served in vetting our sources and quotes a little.
Do you want another example?
Stephen Jay Gold said this...

"Stasis, or non-change, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting non-evidence for evolution... The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution).

*Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," National History, 1993, p. 15

Yet another admission by an evolutionist that data is filtered.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#125332 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Naturally I would not be too relaxed about the dirty Joe fiasco
But that's just me
Perhaps others on the island may feel I'm that nasty one after dirty Joe loses every part of his anatomy that can possibly flap in the wind
But there are others of the disposition that girls are a nuisance
Boys are better
And who may sell her off for a small fee....every night
Several times a night
As happens in the world today and ever since Cain killed Abel
But you can't complain Chimney
You have no objective basis for morality
Odd that religiosity tends to be high in societies where such child prostitution or selling daughters like property occur. Odd, too, that religions based on the Abrahamic God tend to favor men and condone slavery and honor killings, as well as the treatment of females as property of their fathers until given or sold to their husbands. What can we learn from that? Hm...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#125333 Mar 26, 2013
I fail to see how late Cretacious parrots falsify reality and prove that Noah invented the nuclear fusion engine therefore Goddidit with magic.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125334 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Crap. You say there is no reason to be moral if there is no God.
No
I have said you, and MikeF...who contributes little but hot air.... have no objective basis for morality
You're part of the "if it feels good, do it" mentality
Anyone that has a view that differs from your's in terms of morality, is equally right EVEN if diametrically opposed
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have shown you there is plenty of reason, without any supernatural junk at all. The Island was a thought experiment.
I have also shown you that the more atheistic societies disprove your notion that given no belief, people will just descend into amoral chaos.
Your claims are false at every level.
Sorry to "go on" but your claims required some substantial response .
You obviously have not traveled as much as I
And after seeing what I have

I wish I hadn't

EVERYTHING is a thought experiment that has no evidence

Any Christian nations here?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tables/4_col_tables...

For the rest of the list follow the link at the bottom of the screen
----------

Philosophies have consequences

Stop biting the hand that feeds you, Chimney
HTS

Williston, ND

#125335 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming that (1) is correct, then it IS TRUE that smoking might be a healthy practice for Parkinson's sufferers IF there is no better alternative. They might say, "I would rather not wobble at 40 and die at 65 of lung cancer, than wobble at 40 and die later wobbling even worse" and they might be right!
Also, accepting that (1) is true might provoke a research effort to discover what chemical in the tobacco is actually helpful, and isolating it so that it can be delivered in a form with fewer side effects!
However, you say something too general, the hypothesis "smoking is healthy". Any conclusion would have to look at the combined positive and negative effects and rule on the "average" effect on the "average" person which as we know is that smokers die younger etc.
And you're saying something too general.
You point out nylonase development in bacteria, sickle cell anemia, questionable fossils when you know that "on average" no transitional fossils are found...and then you expect e skeptics to swallow everything...that man evolved from molecules.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#125336 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want another example?
Stephen Jay Gold said this...
"Stasis, or non-change, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting non-evidence for evolution... The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution).
*Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," National History, 1993, p. 15
Yet another admission by an evolutionist that data is filtered.
Yeah, Russ got caught using the same lie 6 months ago. Not that we'd ever expect either of you to apologize.

Heaven forbid.(shrug)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#125337 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget it was the churches that founded the major universities of the world like Oxford, Cambridge, Geneva, Harvard and Yale
...and what biological science do these Christian-founded institutions teach?

Creationism?

Intelligent Design?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125338 Mar 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
I fail to see how late Cretacious parrots falsify reality and prove that Noah invented the nuclear fusion engine therefore Goddidit with magic.
Don't worry folks

He'll have a little flutter...

And he'll soon be gone

Along with his male nipples

That he is still scratching is head about
HTS

Williston, ND

#125339 Mar 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So chemistry is something else you don't know about. Two for two.
We can see the results of chemistry. We can predict the results of chemistry. We can do experiments in chemistry, observe the results and draw conclusions based on those results. You are using chemistry right now, though not optimally. We use chemistry everyday. Intelligent design not chemistry. It is not used in any constructive way to ask or answer questions about which experiments can be designed and conducted and observations made. It does not provide answers to anything. All Intelligent Design is used for is to forward a political and social agenda. And so far it hasn't been very successful there either.
Yes, we can see what chemistry does. And nothing we see tells us that a genetic code can evolve from random molecules.
HTS

Williston, ND

#125340 Mar 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What hostile evidence? All you are saying is, "here is an unlikely structure, we demand you show us how it evolved!".
.
Has anyone proved that there is no God?

Yes, I demand that you show me how an unlikely structure formed without God.
What logically leads you to believe that the mantis shrimpis not intelligently designed, when you cannot show how naturalistic processes could have produced it?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#125341 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney
You have no objective basis for morality
Child marriage is commonplace in that peculiar neck of the woods you call home presently
They think its ok so you can stop complaining now
Mohammed's second wife was aged 6 yrs when betrothed to him and aged 9 yrs when their marriage was consummated
Here is a picture of a 9 yr old child
http://cdn-wac.emirates247.com/polopoly_fs/1.... !/image/18240673.jpg
From here
http://www.emirates247.com/crime/region/abduc...
But without an objective basis for morality....it can't be wrong...or may be it is...or maybe not....or perhaps it is?
Who knows? Who do we ask?
Incest, slavery, infanticide, murder, human sacrifice, females treated as property, honor killings...all condoned, if not explicitly commanded, by your God. That is your source of objective morality?

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 57 min deutscher Nationa... 116,685
Are there any dinosaur fossils of their genital... 1 hr cris 1
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 1 hr cris 1
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 4 hr Patrick 332
Difficulty Loading Topix Pages 8 hr Gillette 8
New review critical of "Origins" 8 hr DanFromSmithville 21
Need clarification on evolution 15 hr Dogen 7
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••