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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#128280 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians are never biased against science
Christian can do science just like everyone else
Sure they can. They can't do "creation science" though, as that's an oxymoron:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

"The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge."
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#128281 Apr 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.
Weeellllllllll ,

LG pointed out that AIG had no research that had been peer-reviewed

You said this was wrong

the link you provided seems to state that AIG are PLANNING to open themselves up to peer review.

The link you provided doesn't point out any particular scientific research done by said group that HAS BEEN submitted for peer review.

Sorry I don't see the problem with my statement.

As an aside, and leaving the Evo vs creationism arguments to one side, as one professional to another ....
MS office 2013 with win8 (specifically MS access) crashes on graph.exe when changing font or doing pretty much anything - tried usual forums - no suggestions - any ideas ?
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#128282 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
On what?
You are entirely unsuccessful in convincing me of any alternative belief systems
Dodge

You are becoming a parody
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#128283 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't worry folks.......
Its the Dude
He'll have a little flutter here
...And he'll soon be off
Only because you're boring. One has to find different fundies to maintain variety.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#128284 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So
Mugwump...
You want to be on the bus too?
Let's see a problem with the science, OK?
Otherwise AiG is as legitimate as your Wiki and any other site you care to produce
I personally do not like Wike
But that's only cos' I'm terribly fussy
Dodge
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128285 Apr 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The dark is my friend , it's to bad for you.
I don't think it's possible to dumb it down enough for you.
Were you raised by Roo's or Dingos?
Happy to remain in the dark, eh, Batman?

Typical evo-tard

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#128286 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong Bud
Your research has let you down
Galileo was not a case of Christians against science
It was a case of Christian against the dud-science of the Greeks
Please tell us why Galileo was imprisoned, then?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128287 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians are never biased against science
Christian can do science just like everyone else
The modern scientific method has arisen out of the crucible of Christianity
This article on a site hostile to Christianity
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/...
Tell that to Galileo and Darwin.

There are some Christians that are not biased against science, yet your favorite sites are. And you never addressed your logical fallacy that I pointed out. According to your logic Christianity is responsible for the Holocaust.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128288 Apr 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That is as credible in the scientific circles, as a fart in church.
Is that a Batman fart in church?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128289 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Little birdie wants to spread his wings
You're not ready yet, little birdie
We're not through with Tyre as yet
Do you or do you not accept that ancient Tyre had TWO components?
No, Tyre was ALWAYS the island in the sea. The land based cities were never called Tyre in any form by either the locals or the Hebrews. The few articles that refer to "Paleo-Tyre" are talking about the land based city before Tyre was formed. Once Tyre was developed it quickly became the power of the area. The on shore city always had a different name. In fact Tyre's name tells you that it is an island if you do enough research.

You have lost every aspect of the Tyre prophecy debate.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#128290 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong Bud
Your research has let you down
Galileo was not a case of Christians against science
It was a case of Christian against the dud-science of the Greeks
Which they based on the...

(pssst - begins with a B)
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128291 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they can. They can't do "creation science" though, as that's an oxymoron:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
"The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge."
What's your point?

There must be a point....?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128292 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Only because you're boring. One has to find different fundies to maintain variety.
Give me a shrug....

Go on....

Its been a while.......
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#128293 Apr 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they can. They can't do "creation science" though, as that's an oxymoron:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
"The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge."
Got to ask, is it just me or is Russell that deluded that he can't see the logical fallacy in equating creation.com / AIG etc with science when I have pointed out not only the 'about us' statements but also an example of their 'science'(he just dodges)

Not actually bothered about the details of the particular 'research' just the fact that he can't see the basic flaw in his argument when he makes statements like this
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
NO COMPROMISE
I will settle for nothing less than complete and utter belief in the Scriptures
I mean SURELY he can see the flaw in his argument

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#128294 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Happy to remain in the dark, eh, Batman?
Typical evo-tard

I do my best work where you can't see me, but I see you.
Creotard.... The Iraqis learned that lesson hard in 73 easting.
Sorry about your luck , you never saw it coming.
Some folks call it stealth and night vision.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#128295 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that a Batman fart in church?

I don't write papers for peer review by the disco institute.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128296 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The only Squishy thing here is your head SZ
Squishy, you keep shooting yourself in the foot.

You are Squishy until you admit that you were wrong.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#128297 Apr 26, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Weeellllllllll ,
LG pointed out that AIG had no research that had been peer-reviewed
You said this was wrong
the link you provided seems to state that AIG are PLANNING to open themselves up to peer review.
The link you provided doesn't point out any particular scientific research done by said group that HAS BEEN submitted for peer review.
Sorry I don't see the problem with my statement.
As an aside, and leaving the Evo vs creationism arguments to one side, as one professional to another ....
MS office 2013 with win8 (specifically MS access) crashes on graph.exe when changing font or doing pretty much anything - tried usual forums - no suggestions - any ideas ?
I could not care less about your little stupid issues with MS Office. There is plenty of research there. Perhaps you are too stupid to find the Current Volume or the Archives?
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#128298 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
What's your point?
There must be a point....?
You really can not be this stupid,

The point is about the legitamcacy of creation.com and other creationist sites as a valid SCIENTIFIC source

I.e.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.."
http://creation.com/about-us

Basically - no evidence that contradicts our belief will be considered

Therefore the following is a legit SCIENTIFIC statement

"If we accept all observations about the universe, realizing they are tainted with certain assumptions, which may be wrong, then creationists have a starlight-travel-time problem. This is true if we believe only 6,000 years have passed since the creation of the most distant light sources, and that they were all created at that time, as measured by normal Earth clocks, and we hold to the convention that the timer was started when the star was created. But if the timer was started when the light first arrived on Earth, when someone first saw the event, then this is the Anisotropic Time Convention,6 and there is no light-travel-time problem. There is nothing to answer"
http://creation.com/creationism-modern-scienc...

I.e.'we have no evidence for this, and there is plenty of evidence against it, but as it doesn't conflict with scripture we can ignore the issue of evidence completly'

THIS IS NOT RATIONAL

This is the equivalent of saying

"Anything that conflicts with the books of Harry potter is wrong"

Therefore

"Quiditch is a real sport"

The fact that you can't get this (and dodge it every time I bring it up) is quite scary to be honest.

I can't make the point any simpler

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#128299 Apr 26, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Code implies a secret message.
What secret message did you find in DNA?
Well, code does also, now, include "a deliberate instruction system." It was added because of how cryptic computer code looks to most people, especially original computer code, but computer code is not really cryptic. Code still does not apply to DNA, not anymore, it's no longer cryptic and it was never a deliberate instruction system.

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
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 12 min Science 108
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 33 min Science 164,685
What is the theory of natural selection and has... 37 min Science 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 56 min Science 83,115
Evolution is boring as Hell 1 hr Science 6
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 1 hr Science 122
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 1 hr Science 31
More from around the web