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.

HTS

Mandan, ND

#126169 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are talking about others having no credibility??????!?!?
Wow. Just wow.
Who is the dumbest person on this forum? I don't count defender as a person and Jim isn't around lately, so that leaves you.
Who have I caught lying more times than I can even count? Hummm... oh! You again!
Who has been shown to be laughably ignorant of even basic science while claiming to have been to medical school?
BING! Yes,... You again!
You might want to remember how fragile your glass house is before reloading the cannon.
Dogen, it's laughable to watch you come unhinged as your atheistic religion crumbles.
I know you keep saying you're not at "atheist".
However, you embrace the atheistic religion of evolution.
How can you claim to believe in God, yet every day you deny that He had anything to do with creation?
You confirm what I've been saying all along...
Atheism is not neutral non-belief due to lack of evidence....it is denial of evidence.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126170 Mar 31, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm.. Can you produce any published science that proves there is no God?
And after every possible chemical combination tested under every possible condition in the most highly advanced labs around the world ten thousand times over do you have an answer for how life came to be on this planet?... No...
Thanks for playing...
Why would anyone here feel the need to disprove God? God and evolution get along just fine. Evolution and GENESIS, on the other hand... Or geology and Genesis, or cosmology, or astronomy, or physics. These all show up Genesis for what it is - an imperfect creation myth written by men.

That has nothing to do with God's existence or non-existence.

We keep telling you, but you dolts just cannot seem to get it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126171 Mar 31, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I've told you to stop bring up religion.
Evolution has no science behind it... and you vainly think that by bashing religion you are offering evidence for a scientific theory.
How ridiculous is that?
He is merely playing back to you a reversal of a common caricature about evolution/science that you guys (perhaps not you personally), love to spout. The whole silly "something from nothing" argument. And he is right - that argument would apply to God just as much as anything else. Nobody knows why there should be anything at all and "God" does not answer that question.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#126172 Mar 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you will agree that it should not be taught in a science class.
<quoted text>
That is what we have been doing for the last 100,000+ posts. Every mechanism in evolution is empirically observable in nature. Religion does not come into it any more than it does in explaining lightning.
Neither evolution nor ID should be taught as science. Both are religion.

Every mechanism of evolution is not empirically observable in nature. How can you make such a statement?
Evolution is imagined to occur.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126173 Mar 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I think I have another contender for my list, "Reasons Why Evolution Never Happened". Let's see if it passes muster.
This is in regards to toolmaking that archaeologists find. We are expected to accept that the earlier stone implemnets that are rocks fashioned into a point date from 2.6 million years ago and that only after 2 million plus years or more, they only advanced to later shapes with edges? This does not seem to match what is observed in all of human history with regards to innovation and ingenuity, in any stretch of the imagination. After 50,000 generations, they were only able to go from early stone tools to middle stone age tools? There is nothing in recorded human history that would support such an assertion.
(Not to mention that even in evolutionary terms, there were numerous creatures with extrememly advanced systems for defense, predation, disguise, deception, partnerships, language, navigation, etc.?)
But early humans (supposedly the most advanced species in terms of evolution) spent over 2 million years and went through 50,000 generations and only managed to advance from stone tools with a tip to stone tools with an edge?
That makes no sense whatsover!

Bat Guano Crazy.

Do you want the science or the philosophy of why this is wrong? Philosophy seems more your speed.

Just to try one thing on for size, where stones the only tools early and pre humans used or did they also have other tools?

For another, if you were dumped on a desert island, how much better, could/would you do than an hand axe? A million years from now if someone came to that island what of your island technology would remain?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126174 Mar 31, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not have a "mechanism" for how life developed.
You have dogma... a one-size-fits-all assumption that
mutations + natural selection + time = any complexity.
You assume that complexities that you don't even understand evolved through mechanisms that you can't prove. That is not science.

Don't you have anything better to do than be a science ignorant parrot?

Please educate yourself about evolution then come back when you have something new.

Spewing ignorance is not science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126175 Mar 31, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>God is Energy, and you're right Elohim is plural. The Lord is the wife of God and they are one flesh. Gen.2:24. Our son (pun intended) is the source of energy for the universe and is the bridegroom. Ps.19:4-5. God is omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal, just like energy.

No.

God's wife is Asherah. Or his mistress in some Semitic and pre-semitic writings.

Just an FYI.

As for the rest of your "theology" I suggest you take it up with a psychiatrist.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126176 Mar 31, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I have affirmed over and over again that I'm not suggesting that ID is a scientific theory.
If you think evolution is science, then defend it without making references to religion...

Evolution is an observable fact.

The Theory of Evolution is the ONLY explanation of evolution on the table that is based on the scientific method.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126177 Mar 31, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything you've explained amounts to nothing more than bedtime stories founded on the assumption that the history of the earth confirms to your worldview.
It sounds impressive to the uninitiated...but beneath all of the facade you have nothing more than wild conjecture.

Epic fail.

Here is the crusher post that lead to this debacle:

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankly, I do not believe you. You may have "seen the site" but you have not read the article.
The following merely scratches the surface of this huge and detailed account of Geologic Column that you think you can run away from with a hand wave….
1300 feet of Ordovician limestone deposit that if deposited in one year would emit 278x the energy received from the sun over the period
Shales, forming 46% of the column i.e. several thousand feet, requiring long periods of tranquil waters. Chalks the same – as it takes a typical 2micron chalk particle 80 days to fall through 100 feet of dead still water and there are hundreds of feet of chalk as well as thousands of feet of slow deposition shales not to mention even slower deposition (in water) for volcanic ash if its possible at all to get a coherent layer of that in water…(not even mentioned in this article, the monstrous Deccan and Siberian Traps, continent wide monsters of heightened vulcanism of several hundred thousand years each!).
Many interspersed layers of salt beds requiring long periods of drying conditions to form. Some particular anhydtrate layers forming specific patterns of drying and formation only found today around the Persian Gulf as mineral rich water dries at 35+ degrees .
Oncolites – spherically concentric carbonate depositions caused by algae, again taking time…
Eroded limestone horizons of a pattern that cannot be created under water…along with land fossils of course interspersed with up to 11 marine layers.
Burrowing patterns through many layers of the rocks at different levels, 15,000 layers interleaved with non-burrowed sandstone layers, requiring, according to flood geology, 157 layerings per day.
The dead crinoids…fragments of dead crinoids plates between 500 and 2,000 feet THICK. Making up the limestone of the Mississipian epoch. If they all died during a flood, or even in the period before the flood, there would not be enough room in all the oceans to accommodate them, along with everything else supposedly alive at the same time. This is the work of millions of years of living organisms dying and being deposited…and we haven’t even got to the age of the dinosaurs yet.
Next comes the Triassic and Jurassic formations and then we have interspersed marine and evaporitic rocks, then rcoks requiring algal deposition, then more bloody slow depositing shale, Then beds full of dinos, mammals, and plants, the latter two being unlike any alive today…
More shale…more limestone, volcanic ash beds (how did ash beds – even finer material than the chalk above – form in the middle of a Flood)? Then more coccoliths, etc, more shale, and then…the famous KT boundary with Iridium…then more sea, more dy land stuff, even glacial periods showing up…
All through this, the gradually changing fossil record consistent with evolution’s nested hierarchy and no other pattern. Not size, not speed, not typical environment, no “creationist” scheme come close to the actual fossil record patterns.
----------
I have been offered creatard responses to 100th of this and they are still deficient even in that.
You haven't got a hope.

----------

Really, it is not necessary to respond to a creationists post to refute it. All one has to do is read it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126178 Mar 31, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I've told you to stop bring up religion.
Evolution has no science behind it... and you vainly think that by bashing religion you are offering evidence for a scientific theory.
How ridiculous is that?

Gravity has no science behind it.

See, I can say things like that too. They are more true for gravity than evolution so actually I make the better argument.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126179 Mar 31, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen, it's laughable to watch you come unhinged as your atheistic religion crumbles.
I know you keep saying you're not at "atheist".
However, you embrace the atheistic religion of evolution.
How can you claim to believe in God, yet every day you deny that He had anything to do with creation?
You confirm what I've been saying all along...
Atheism is not neutral non-belief due to lack of evidence....it is denial of evidence.

Your insanity grows by the day. Either you don't read my posts or you don't understand them. You don't seem to understand much of anything, so I guess that is the leading theory.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are talking about others having no credibility??????!?!?
Wow. Just wow.
Who is the dumbest person on this forum? I don't count defender as a person and Jim isn't around lately, so that leaves you.
Who have I caught lying more times than I can even count? Hummm... oh! You again!
Who has been shown to be laughably ignorant of even basic science while claiming to have been to medical school?
BING! Yes,... You again!
You might want to remember how fragile your glass house is before reloading the cannon.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126180 Mar 31, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Neither evolution nor ID should be taught as science. Both are religion.
Every mechanism of evolution is not empirically observable in nature. How can you make such a statement?
Evolution is imagined to occur.

what mechanism of evolution cannot be observed?

[Hint: we discovered these mechanisms by observation]


p.s. Gravity is just imagined to occur.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126181 Mar 31, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Neither evolution nor ID should be taught as science. Both are religion.
Every mechanism of evolution is not empirically observable in nature. How can you make such a statement?
Evolution is imagined to occur.
And how many times do we have to explain to you that this claim is incredibly wrong.

You know that we listed at least four different ways that evolution has been observed. You have not debunked any of those ways.

Repeating lies on your part does not make them true.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126182 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
God's wife is Asherah. Or his mistress in some Semitic and pre-semitic writings.
Just an FYI.
As for the rest of your "theology" I suggest you take it up with a psychiatrist.
Asherah is a pagan tree god and I believe in the living God of Abraham. Lilith was Adams first wife and Eve was his daughter. Just because someone doesn't agree with you and tries to enlighten you doesn't make them crazy.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#126183 Mar 31, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, SZ...
Go to your Bible talkorigins
Well put, HTS

Its his bible alright

I suspect he has printed off a copy of the whole site and carries it around with him like a security blanket of sorts

He probably has several copies of what he thinks are the "good bits"....

These he keeps under his pillow, no doubt

Which is why he is forced to sleep bolt upright

....and also why he is frazzled each morning and half asleep all day long
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#126184 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I admit I catch you lying a lot less that HTS. HTS simply cannot sit down and type without lying. He actually believes quote mining to be okay and we are nit picking when we call him on it.
That is the sort of people you have on your side.
Just because someone says things that you don't like, and to which you have no valid response, does not constitute lying on their part

Since: Mar 13

Bristol, UK

#126185 Mar 31, 2013
You don't teach kids in school that the easter bunny is real nor that Santa is real why do they continue to teach kids this crap about religion, it should be up to the parents to guide their offspring. But yes teach them about evolution
HTS

Mandan, ND

#126186 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
what mechanism of evolution cannot be observed?
[Hint: we discovered these mechanisms by observation]
p.s. Gravity is just imagined to occur.
The creation of complexity through random mutations.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#126187 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Gravity has no science behind it.
See, I can say things like that too. They are more true for gravity than evolution so actually I make the better argument.
Dogen, can't you come up with some actual science?
Your repetitive parroting of the same irrelevant analogy is getting annoying.
I know it's become fashionable to compare evolution to gravity, but the comparison is asinine.
There's a difference...
Gravity is observed.
Evolution is not.
Rather than simply swallow all of the BS on talkorigins, I suggest that you for once engage in scientific study and logic.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126188 Mar 31, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The creation of complexity through random mutations.
What do you mean by "complexity"?

You try to hide your bullshit by using undefined terms.

And you also lie by only mentioning halve of the driving force of evolution. You would be right if it was random mutations alone, but you know it is variation along with natural selection that drives evolution. It is exceedingly dishonest to leave out one of the two driving forces.

We know that selection and variation can add new traits. It has been observed in nature and in the lab. Its history in the past show up in the DNA genome and in the fossil record.

So in what way do you mean that evolution cannot add "complexity"?

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 18 min ChristineM 151,277
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 39 min Tinka 199,161
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr karl44 14,802
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Aura Mytha 33,875
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 5 hr DanFromSmithville 27
My Story Part 1 13 hr JanusBifrons 1
Evolution in action Jun 20 Darth Robo 9
More from around the web