Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

Elohim

Branford, CT

#125796 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Questioning a hypothesis is not "anti-science".
Creationism is not science. It is a fallacy based on a fairy tale.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125797 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
I already know what you'll do... you'll post a link.
You won't answer the question, because all you can do is defer to some "expert".
That's not good enough.
I'm waiting for science.
Experts are good enough. Damn funny!
LowellGuy

United States

#125798 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You said your objective foundation for morality is the golden rule. Yet you consistently contradict that by your hate-filled posts. You are the only one of the atheist stooges on this forum that contended that atheism has an objective basis of morality. Thus, you and you alone have set yourself up as the poster child for atheism.
Your predictable conduct validates what I've long observed... Atheism has no objective foundation of morality.
Actions speak louder than words.
Since when is authoritarian fiat an objective basis of morality?

Why won't you answer this question?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125799 Mar 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the origin of DNA is a "small problem" because it does not matter where it came from.
How many times do you have to be told that simple fact before it soaks into your pointy little head.
Most likely it came about naturally. We don't know all of the details yet. Once first life was set it could evolve, and did evolve.
It could have been put here by E.T.. This is highly unlikely. It does not matter. Once first life was set it could evolve, and did evolve.
It could even have been magically poofed into existence by your god. It does not matter. Once first life was set it could evolve, and did evolve.
Do you understand yet why where the first DNA came from is not a problem?
I don't believe DNA "proofed into existence"... so why do you keep using that ridiculous characature?
Intelligent human beings who write computer codes don't "poof" them into existence.
Why is it so difficult for you to conceive of a power of intelligence behind the purposeful organization of matter?

You're the one who believes in evo-fairies and pixie dust. You think DNA "just happened".
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125800 Mar 28, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when is authoritarian fiat an objective basis of morality?
Why won't you answer this question?
Because I agree that authoritarian fiat is not an objective basis of morality.
Why do you presume to know what my religious beliefs are, and what relevance do they have to science?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125801 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe DNA "proofed into existence"... so why do you keep using that ridiculous characature?
Intelligent human beings who write computer codes don't "poof" them into existence.
Why is it so difficult for you to conceive of a power of intelligence behind the purposeful organization of matter?
You're the one who believes in evo-fairies and pixie dust. You think DNA "just happened".
I know that you don't believe that. I never said that you believed that. You believe that man magically poofed into existence as a whole critter.

I could conceive of a god that poofed everthing into existence by magic, but that is not what the evidence shows and I don't believe in a god that lies. It seems that you and rusty do. You try to imitate your god by lying all of the time. Hey look! You lied again.

No one claims that DNA just happened. Scientists are busy right now trying to understand how abiogenesis happened.

You are the one who wants to take the easy route and claim it was all done by magic. We are the ones who are willing to do the hard work and figure how how it happened.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125802 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I agree that authoritarian fiat is not an objective basis of morality.
Why do you presume to know what my religious beliefs are, and what relevance do they have to science?
So if authoritarian fiat is not your objective basis of morality where do you get your morals from?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125803 Mar 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that you don't believe that. I never said that you believed that. You believe that man magically poofed into existence as a whole critter.
I could conceive of a god that poofed everthing into existence by magic, but that is not what the evidence shows and I don't believe in a god that lies. It seems that you and rusty do. You try to imitate your god by lying all of the time. Hey look! You lied again.
No one claims that DNA just happened. Scientists are busy right now trying to understand how abiogenesis happened.
You are the one who wants to take the easy route and claim it was all done by magic. We are the ones who are willing to do the hard work and figure how how it happened.
Believing in abiogenesis is not different that believing in magic. You can't provide one shred of scientific logic to justify your position that matter can self-organize into a genetic code. All you can say is that scientists are working on it. That doesn't prove anything. You say that scientists are trying to understand "how abiogenesis happened". That is a foredrawn conclusion and is not science.

Ultimately, SZ, you worship at the feet of scientific elites. Churck Darwin is your high priest, and natural selection is your god.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125804 Mar 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Experts are good enough. Damn funny!
Mike, going with the flow is not science.
Science requires looking at data and drawing conclusions regardless of the political fallout. I realize that it is politically fashionable today to drink Darwinian koolaid. From your posts of late, it is obvious that you harbor deep insecurities coupled with emotional reasons for believing in evo-fairies and pixie dust. But science speaks for itself. A turnip cannot evolve into a giraffe, regardless of how much you try to rationalize away probability barriers through your twisted logic founded on atheism.

Believing in abiogenesis is just as absurd in believing that the proverbial junkyard tornado can create a 747. It ain't gonna happen.... ever. Even if you factor in trillions of trillions of molecules, billions of plants, billions of years,... life is simply too complex to "poof" into existence.

Understand that almost all major advances in science in the past have been the result of minority opinion demanding re-evaluation of the facts. Darwinism is crashing, Mike, and you're apprently content to go down with a sinking ship.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125805 Mar 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So if authoritarian fiat is not your objective basis of morality where do you get your morals from?
SZ...
Where my moral code comes from is irrelevant. What does my religion have to do with science?

You evo-tards are constantly stating that you have an objective basis for morality. Yet you have failed to define it, because you know that any attempt you make will result in your humiliation.
Mike gave it a shot by claiming that his guiding star was the golden rule, and he was immediately called out on it.

Now it's your turn.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125806 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, going with the flow is not science.
Science requires looking at data and drawing conclusions regardless of the political fallout. I realize that it is politically fashionable today to drink Darwinian koolaid. From your posts of late, it is obvious that you harbor deep insecurities coupled with emotional reasons for believing in evo-fairies and pixie dust. But science speaks for itself. A turnip cannot evolve into a giraffe, regardless of how much you try to rationalize away probability barriers through your twisted logic founded on atheism.
Believing in abiogenesis is just as absurd in believing that the proverbial junkyard tornado can create a 747. It ain't gonna happen.... ever. Even if you factor in trillions of trillions of molecules, billions of plants, billions of years,... life is simply too complex to "poof" into existence.
Understand that almost all major advances in science in the past have been the result of minority opinion demanding re-evaluation of the facts. Darwinism is crashing, Mike, and you're apprently content to go down with a sinking ship.
Has anyone pointed out to you how full of shit you are?

Deep insecurities. That's funny as well. I'm not the one pretending to be a physician.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125807 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
Mike gave it a shot by claiming that his guiding star was the golden rule, and he was immediately called out on it.
Oh big F'in deal. So I don't always live up to my own ideals. So what?

What was that about casting the first stone?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125808 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Believing in abiogenesis is not different that believing in magic. You can't provide one shred of scientific logic to justify your position that matter can self-organize into a genetic code. All you can say is that scientists are working on it. That doesn't prove anything. You say that scientists are trying to understand "how abiogenesis happened". That is a foredrawn conclusion and is not science.
Ultimately, SZ, you worship at the feet of scientific elites. Churck Darwin is your high priest, and natural selection is your god.
No, the study of abiogenesis is an active field of science. They have many of the answers to the problem of abiogenesis. They do not have all of the answers yet. And of course you know you are lying when you make the claim that we cannot show science that supports abiogenesis.

What's the problem? Why do you find the need to lie constantly?

Too bad that you are such a tard, until you pass the evidence class you cannot demand any evidence.

Of course you believe that your willful ignorance protects you from Jesus. It doesn't. If your god exist he definitely is not as stupid as you are. Nor will he be fooled by you.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125809 Mar 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh big F'in deal. So I don't always live up to my own ideals. So what?
What was that about casting the first stone?
Perhaps I should cut you some slack, Mike...
But you're not even trying.
You can hardly utter a sentence without profanity, as evidenced in your above post.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125810 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ...
Where my moral code comes from is irrelevant. What does my religion have to do with science?
You evo-tards are constantly stating that you have an objective basis for morality. Yet you have failed to define it, because you know that any attempt you make will result in your humiliation.
Mike gave it a shot by claiming that his guiding star was the golden rule, and he was immediately called out on it.
Now it's your turn.
Actually it isn't.

You made a false claim.

You now have to defend it.

You know that you made a false claim.

That is why you don't want to defend it.

What is wrong with using the Golden Rule for a basis for morality? Mike was not called out for it.

I try to follow the GR myself. I am never the first to call names here. I don't call someone a creatard until they show that they are a creatard. Creatards are creationists that lie and deny obvious scientific facts. When I have been done unto I don't have to play nice anymore.

So we know that by your actions you are a lying immoral ass.

What more do we need to know about HST?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125811 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have set up a false bifurcation between science and religion.
You claim God is not science because you don't understand God and how He operates.
No one really understands the wave/particle duality of light, the Higgs Bozon particles, or fundamental concepts of gravity. They are observations and are therefore concluded to exist.
Were those who saw Jesus performing miracles and concluding his divinity rejecting science?

You have set up a false bifurcation between science and religion.
You claim God is not science because you don't understand God and how He operates.
No one really understands the wave/particle duality of light, the Higgs Boson particles, or fundamental concepts of gravity. They are observations and are therefore concluded to exist. Were those who saw Jesus performing miracles and concluding his divinity rejecting science?

I love it when all I have to do if fix the spelling errors.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125812 Mar 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the study of abiogenesis is an active field of science. They have many of the answers to the problem of abiogenesis. They do not have all of the answers yet. And of course you know you are lying when you make the claim that we cannot show science that supports abiogenesis.
What's the problem? Why do you find the need to lie constantly?
Too bad that you are such a tard, until you pass the evidence class you cannot demand any evidence.
Of course you believe that your willful ignorance protects you from Jesus. It doesn't. If your god exist he definitely is not as stupid as you are. Nor will he be fooled by you.
Overstating what science knows isn't helpful. They do not know "many things" about how life could have formed. They haven't provided one clue as to how a genetic code could self-organize. That is not a minor detail. Everything else is trivial in comparison.

Even if you imagine that cell membranes, specific proteins, ribosomes, enzymes and mRNA could self organize... there is no life without DNA. It controls everything. WHere did it come from?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125814 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll tell you what's nauseating...
The "big picture" that you see is a massive house of cards, founded on one unprovable assumption after another. In reality, the "gaps" that you imagine exist comprise nearly the entirely of the living world.

You are silly. You try to supplant science with a mythunderstand of the bible THEN say it is science that has gone awry? What hubris.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> For example, the origin of DNA is viewed as a minor detail that science hasn't quite figured out yet. It is assumed that a naturalistic explaination for its origin exists. Obstacles are consistently minimized, and what man actually knows is always overstated.

You like to make problems where non are known to exist. All of nature is intertwined. Why would we assume that gravity is a product of gods universe, stars are a product of gods universe, but DNA had to be hand crafted by god because he failed to build it in? Where is the logic in that? Or do you fail to see that this is your "logic"?


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> In actuality, you have no scientific evidence for the gradualistic transmutation of species. You have nothing but a huge complilation of imaginative stories which cannot even be supported by conceptually plausible pathways.

This is ultimate desperation. We know species evolve. We know species are genetically related. We know of nothing that can stop evolution!!!

Like the brick in my earlier example. Would we like to watch it every second of the way down from our balloon at 100,000 feet or can we assume, the very second it is thrown, that it will eventually hit the ground? How do we know that? even if it hits something on the way down, it will still eventually get to the ground (as likely will the thing it hit).

How do propose that evolution be stopped?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125815 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Overstating what science knows isn't helpful. They do not know "many things" about how life could have formed. They haven't provided one clue as to how a genetic code could self-organize. That is not a minor detail. Everything else is trivial in comparison.
Even if you imagine that cell membranes, specific proteins, ribosomes, enzymes and mRNA could self organize... there is no life without DNA. It controls everything. WHere did it come from?
Sure they have. Again, you know that you are lying. Articles and videos have been linked in the past that explained this.

Cell membranes was solved a long time ago. Many of your questions have been answered. Why don't you Google search for them for yourself for once?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125816 Mar 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
Dogen, if you were interested in the "big picture" you would be asking why the fossil record doesn't document millions of transitional species.
It does.


HTS wrote:
All you can do is point to a few very questionable examples... archaeopteryx, pakicetus, australopithicus, tiktaalik... and you ignore the lack of what evolution logically predicts... millions of intermediates.

Questionable examples? Oh, you mean SLAM DUNK examples. And most fossils are transitional. To be a transitional means to have a species before it and after it in the same lineage. We have plenty of those. We have 24 for human ancestors alone. Of course we are not sure if they are all transitional, but at least half are.


HTS wrote:
Instead, you simply rename and reclassify everything and imagine that everything is transitional, founded on your relativistic worldview.

Your use of the word "relativistic" is out of place in the above. I sometimes thing you just throw words in to see if anyone is awake. well, I am awake. This time.

Please try not to put me back to sleep.

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) 1 min Eagle 12 - 81,844
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Genesis Enigma 164,290
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Science 2,192
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Science 33,072
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web