Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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

#128414 Apr 27, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one saying chemistry is a code.
Not chemistry

DNA
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128415 Apr 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
But Urb, you don't listen to leading scientists from major universities...
Like Andy McIntosh?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128416 Apr 27, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Not chemistry
DNA
No, chemistry. DNA works through chemistry.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#128417 Apr 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it was neither.
It is pretty pathetic that you cannot debate without lying.
Urb, I challenge you to debate evolution or religion without lying. I bet you cannot do it.
Your pathetic.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128418 Apr 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a stupid liar now.
Mithra wasn't Greek and wasn't a woman.
But my handle has nothing to do with Mithra.
Not that it matters to me to inform you what it means I will anyway.
It means.
Are ah Myth ah In which Batman and god both are.
I am ridiculously naive when it comes to gods

You see I love and adore the God of gods

Yahweh

Lord of lords, King of kings, Creator God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, Giver and taker of Life

Nothing comes close

Our salvation if from Him

Nimrod is dead

Jesus lives

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#128419 Apr 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it was neither.
It is pretty pathetic that you cannot debate without lying.
Urb, I challenge you to debate evolution or religion without lying. I bet you cannot do it.
You are the one who has to lie. I have no reason to lie. And I don't lie. You seem to have no problem with it and seem to think that lying helps your argument. Well, really, it makes it worse. You are not only wrong, you're a liar, too. There's no sense in trying to talk some sense into you. You're too far gone for that.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128420 Apr 27, 2013
Russell wrote:
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."
<quoted text>
Russell wrote
Sooooo.....
Where's the point?
Isn't there meant to be a point...?
What is it....?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Over your head.(shrug)
So what's your point?

When have I ever claimed to be smart?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#128421 Apr 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly.
I can go to the Bible and prove my claims without any lying. You on the other hand can't help but to lie.
Isn't it great when you can use the Bible to help prove that the Bible is full of errors?
There isn't any errors in the Bible. Obviously all the errors are coming from you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128422 Apr 27, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Like Andy McIntosh?
He said "Leading scientists from major universities" McIntosh is neither of these.

The idiot tries to use the second law of thermodynamics argument. No leading scientist has tried to use that for over 50 years.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#128423 Apr 27, 2013
It's also very interesting that the evotards like to argue theology rather than defend evolution. LOL!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128424 Apr 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your pathetic.
No, not my pathetic Urb.

Try again.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128425 Apr 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, chemistry. DNA works through chemistry.
So in the case of DNA, chemistry has written a code, and this code also contains instructions for the de-coding machinery?

----------
How did genetic drift and random mutation result in a quaternary triplet code with two epigenetic codes eg histosome and splicing codes?
==========

But first.....

Off to Tyre
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128426 Apr 27, 2013
How many 'Tyres' are on this map?

What did you want me to see in the Google Book link?

http://www.ancient.eu.com/image/537/

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128427 Apr 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who has to lie. I have no reason to lie. And I don't lie. You seem to have no problem with it and seem to think that lying helps your argument. Well, really, it makes it worse. You are not only wrong, you're a liar, too. There's no sense in trying to talk some sense into you. You're too far gone for that.
Bullshit. You lie all of the time. You have to lie since without lying creationists have nothing.

All of the scientific evidence supports evolution. You lie when you say there is no evidence for evolution.

You on the other hand cannot find a lie of mine. I can defend my proof that the Tyre prophesy failed by reading the prophesy in context and looking at history. To defend it you try to take it out of context, that is a form of lying. You deny that people live in Tyre today, that is clearly a lie when you have been shown countless articles about Tyre. We could fill pages with your lies Urb.

Let's see you defend any of your points without lying.

I see that you are deflecting and running away from the challenge.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#128428 Apr 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Just what are your requirements for a "peer-reviewed" journal? I like to hear it. There is nothing that requires using people with widely differeing and even contrary perspectives. Journals such as "Evolution" certainly do not require the use of non-evolutionists!
The only reason most atheists read the Bible is to criticize and undermine its position. They have no interest in understanding it. So why should Creation Science journal choose reviewers who would approach it in the same manner?
Peer review in any setting is hardly unbiased. Humans are inherently biased. Occasionally articles are refuted later and this happens in both secular and Creation Science journals.
Many times, creation scientists have submitted articles to secular journals and everytime they are rejected. However, creation journals have accepted secular articles, and often reference secular reseach (Yes, evolutionary science hurts their own theory all by itself!).
Yes, Creation Science journals (and I agree) state their faith in the word of God and this is the foundation of our worldview. We are upfront and open about this. Although you won't find a secular journal that states their position on evolution or an old earth in plain language but they have never considered publishing the views of a creation scientist (not yet anyway). The evolutionist's statement of faith is implied in every article published on the subject; although they just don't like to admit that but have no problem readily and bolding containing specific anti-creation, anti-ID articles and declarations!
The fact is the creation science journals use the same peer review process as secular journals and the authors are every bit as qualified.
If you still have concerns you should write the Editor of such creation science journals, i.e, Creation Research Society Quarterly.
I guess I should thank you for at least trying to address the point , its more than Russell ever attempted, but my issue (in this case) isn't about peer review, it's a lot more fundemental than that.

Creation.com basically states in its 'about us' section that any evidence that contridicts scripture can be dismissed out of hand, without evaluation.

This is acceptable from a faith point of view (though can understand many would disagree even on this point), but from a scientific perspective?

In any other disipline,if an orgainisation that states, it will dismiss without evaluation any arguments against it would suggest a weakness of their position rather than a strength.

And in the pursuit of 'scientific truth' it is even more ridiculous , the whole point of the scientific method is that is ALLOWS for new evidence to modify (or even overturn) a theory.

And your argument that 'well at least they are honest and up front about it' doesn't help your cause one bit, its like basically saying 'yeah, I admit that we project a scientific persona in our writings, but don't follow the fundemental tenents of what science demands - BUT at least we are honest about it'

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#128429 Apr 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a translation and it is a code. Get an education and you'll learn about it.
Ah, you mean like when water reaches 212 degrees it is coded to boil and is translated visually by lots of itty bitty bubbles?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#128430 Apr 27, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok KK
Why don't you answer my question then since you are full of .....I have no idea what....!
How did genetic drift and random mutations result in a quaternary triplet code with TWO epigenetic codes eg histosomes and splicing codes?
How? Simple, chemical processes are either stable or unstable, stable ones continue while unstable ones break down to greater processes. The genetic structure today is the most stable of those that occurred, and thus, that's what we have. However, again, it's not a code, closest anthropomorphic standard we have is recipe.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128431 Apr 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
It's also very interesting that the evotards like to argue theology rather than defend evolution. LOL!
There is no need to defend evolution. We have already done that. If you were not such a constant liar you would have admitted defeat years ago.

So idiot, do you want to learn what is and what is not evidence?

If you don't then all I have to do is to point out that you are wrong and lying when you next deny evidence for evolution.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128432 Apr 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
He said "Leading scientists from major universities" McIntosh is neither of these.
The idiot tries to use the second law of thermodynamics argument. No leading scientist has tried to use that for over 50 years.
Why is he an idiot?

Are you back on Rosa Park's bus

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128433 Apr 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There isn't any errors in the Bible. Obviously all the errors are coming from you.
See, you can't help but to lie.

You know you lost the Tyre prophesy debate.

Here is a simple question for you:

are there people living in Tyre today?

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) 28 min deutscher Nationa... 134,007
How would creationists explain... 1 hr Dogen 435
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Dogen 682
Science News (Sep '13) Wed positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web