Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180394 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.

“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.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#128300 Apr 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Now, publicly acknowledge that I was right and you were wrong.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#128301 Apr 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
You don't care, or you don't know. I'd wager you have no idea.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#128302 Apr 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/about
You're pathetic and you know it.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#128303 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/...
If you disqualify certain conclusions out-of-hand regardless of the evidence, that is biased against science.

Science doesn't disqualify God in any way; there's just no evidence that such a thing exists, and natural phenomena, so far as there is evidence, are caused by things that exist. When you can demonstrate the existence of God with empirical evidence, it will be factored in as a potential cause of phenomena. Until then, it will reside with Zeus and Thor.

We're not biased against God; why are you, and creation.com , biased against science?
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#128304 Apr 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.
Show us an AIG-sponsored creationism research article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128305 Apr 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Show us an AIG-sponsored creationism research article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Urb's link was about a creationist circle jerk "peer reviewed journal".

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) 7 min The RED X Sniper 61,115
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr THE LONE WORKER 220,533
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 hr Subduction Zone 160,242
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 hr Science 28,312
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 14 hr Subduction Zone 2,643
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) 20 hr Regolith Based Li... 99
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) Mar 15 fransherrell 227
More from around the web