Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
125,981 - 126,000 of 172,160 Comments Last updated 5 hrs ago

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129217
May 7, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The sorting going on is the mind of the evolutionist. They are not at progressively deeper layers underground as you go back in "evoltuionary" time. If you don't know this, you really are clueless. Fossils are rarely, if ever found in core samples. They are just found at the surface in various places and the location is indexed according to the fossil/evolution date. It's all contrived.
What a maroon. What an ignoranimus!

Who told you that fossils are not found in core samples? They are found all of the time. Especially microscopic fossils or even worse for creatards microscopic index fossils.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129218
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The geologic column to whioh you refer is nothing more than a bedtime story. The predictable sequences that you imagine do not exist.
Your references to modern medicine relying of evolutionary theory are likewise asinine. No research in any area of modern medicine takes evolution into account... it is IRRELEVANT.
SZ, you only reveal your abject stupidity when you make such absurd statements that do not bear any semblance of credibility.
Why do we do animal testing?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129219
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
My "silly beliefs"?
You think that man evolved from a worm... and you call my beliefs "silly"?
Yes, we have evidence for our beliefs. And logic, facts, experiments, in fact all of science supports the theory of evolution.

You on the other hand have a book where it was necessary to tell the people not to have sex with animals. Seriously, if you have to tell someone that they should not do that isn't there something seriously wrong with that person? A book that has been shown to have countless flaws.

It seems that the only reason you believe that nonsense is because you are afraid of deatn.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129220
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we have evidence for our beliefs. And logic, facts, experiments, in fact all of science supports the theory of evolution.
You on the other hand have a book where it was necessary to tell the people not to have sex with animals. Seriously, if you have to tell someone that they should not do that isn't there something seriously wrong with that person? A book that has been shown to have countless flaws.
It seems that the only reason you believe that nonsense is because you are afraid of deatn.
It's laughable to watch you robotically parrot the same atheistic garbage over and over again. If it makes you feel good to bash others' religion to justify your amoral lifestyle, you're truly desperate.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129221
May 7, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure have skewed view of things. First of all, Christians are no more scared of death than anyone else. People in general tend to deny their own mortality and rarely think about their death until it comes knocking on the door. Dying saved Christians do tend to leave this world in peace with a smile on their face while atheists tend to die in terror and agony.
Evidence?

Please, show us the evidence that a majority Bible-believing Christians die with smiles on their faces, while a majority of atheists die in terror and agony.

Or, admit that you're just MAKING SHIT UP.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
And denying science is the last thing a Christian would do - it's inseparable.
So, you accept that Noah's global year-long miles-deep flood never occurred. Great! A baby step forward.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Finally, Christains don't get to Heaven through "good works". It is by faith alone. Man, you were wrong on all accounts.
Well, that depends on your sect of Christianity.

But, to be clear: it doesn't matter how evil you are in life. You can rape children, torture them, kill them, steal the life savings of the elderly in their hour of need, mock the terminally ill, and advocate the genocide of entire countries, but still end up being eternally rewarded by your God. Meanwhile, another person can spend a lifetime doing charitable works for others, raising foster children in a loving home, working as teachers to educate others to become better people, bringing comfort to the terminally ill, feeding the hungry, and giving all their excess funds to the needy, and they will be punished for eternity by your God.

This...THIS...is your "ultimate morality." Which, ultimately, means that the evil are not accountable in any way for their deeds, because they can be rewarded eternally despite their evil, and the good non-believers are punished. You advocate a morality that punishes good people and rewards bad people. You accept that as a just and wise standard. That is YOUR God's rule, according to you. If you disagree, then you don't accept that faith, not deeds, is the criterion for Heaven. But, I don't expect reasonability out of you. You're too far gone at this point to suddenly stop being completely batshit ridiculous. You can't back out, so you have to push all the way through instead, going beyond ridiculous to absurd, and you have to defend the absurd to avoid changing your position.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129222
May 7, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, totally refuted.
http://creation.com/sediba-not-human-ancestor
Only science refutes science. As creation.com is anti-science, no science will come from them. Therefore, creation.com cannot refute science. Game, set, suck it.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129223
May 7, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody who accepts the theory of evolution and understands what it is would ever suggest that man evolved from a worm. And, because you neither accept nor understand it, you don't know why.
If you believe in evolution, you believe that man evolved from a microbe and passed through a worm-like stage. You need to honestly acknowledge what your religion teaches.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129224
May 7, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the geologic column is observed all around the world. Not all of it at the surfaces in any one location. Nor even all of it at one place. But at places you can observe over 90% of it.
Let's compare the geologic column to a book that was printed at various publishers ( corresponding to different environments ) all around the world. The book is printed and the pages are laid down loosely at first. In some places a wind comes through occasionally and blows off some of the pages of the books. New pages are put on top of old pages whether the wind blows them or not. In some places two copies of the books are squished so hard together that first the pages bend and fold. In some places whole layers are pushed on top of others ( corresponding to orogeny or mountain building ). With all of those books throughout the world. All written about the same subject, even though they are done in different type faces, and even languages at times, do you think an expert could figure out the order that the book came in?
That is the geologic column. It is a book that is written about the history of the Earth. A trained geologist can read it like a book. He can compare one part of the world to another and show what pieces go where.
A trained idiot like Urb or How's That for Stupid can only deny the history of the book. They have no facts to back up their denial, only the knowledge that their invisible friend will disappear the truth is taught.
Regardless of your vain efforts to justify your amoral worldview, bashing religion does not provide positive evidence for a scientific theory.
Your incessant references to the geologic column only reveal your ignorance of science. The geologic column is a bedtime story... nothing more. THe selective cherry-picking of data is not science... it is scientific fraud.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129225
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It's laughable to watch you robotically parrot the same atheistic garbage over and over again. If it makes you feel good to bash others' religion to justify your amoral lifestyle, you're truly desperate.
No parroting. And evolution is no more atheistic than gravity.

Why don't you complain about people robotically parroting atheistic garbage when they describe how an object falls?

Evolution only shows certain parts of your Bible to be mythological, but then simple gravity does that too.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129226
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> If you believe in evolution, you believe that man evolved from a microbe and passed through a worm-like stage. You need to honestly acknowledge what your religion teaches.
You don't seem to understand what a religion is. Religious beliefs are faith based. That is believing something that you do not have any evidence for. Saying that a person has religious faith is the same as saying that they are gullible.

Science is based upon observation and deduction. We can observe the evidence for evolution. It is undeniable. There is no scientific evidence for creation.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129227
May 7, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't seem to understand what a religion is. Religious beliefs are faith based. That is believing something that you do not have any evidence for. Saying that a person has religious faith is the same as saying that they are gullible.
Science is based upon observation and deduction. We can observe the evidence for evolution. It is undeniable. There is no scientific evidence for creation.
It requires faith for you to believe that DNA can form from random molecular interactions... unless you can invoke some law of science that allows for spontaneous assembly of a genetic code.

This is not some minor detail, SZ... no life is possible without DNA, and you have no naturalistic explanation for its existence. You have FAITH that it was assembled without intelligence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129228
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of your vain efforts to justify your amoral worldview, bashing religion does not provide positive evidence for a scientific theory.
Your incessant references to the geologic column only reveal your ignorance of science. The geologic column is a bedtime story... nothing more. THe selective cherry-picking of data is not science... it is scientific fraud.
My world view is not amoral. Why would you make that idiotic assumption. Oops, sorry. Of course this is How's That I am responding to.

No, the geologic column is a real thing that can be observed almost anywhere on the surface of the Earth. You will not observe the whole thing, but then no geologist ever promised that you would

Poor ignorant How's That.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129229
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It requires faith for you to believe that DNA can form from random molecular interactions... unless you can invoke some law of science that allows for spontaneous assembly of a genetic code.
This is not some minor detail, SZ... no life is possible without DNA, and you have no naturalistic explanation for its existence. You have FAITH that it was assembled without intelligence.
Nope, no faith. Just knowledge of basic chemistry. And we do have a naturalistic explanation for DNA. We DON'T have all of the answer yet. That does not mean we don't have an explanation based on natural causes.

Poor little tyke. Logic makes his brain hurt.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129230
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence?
Please, show us the evidence that a majority Bible-believing Christians die with smiles on their faces, while a majority of atheists die in terror and agony.
Or, admit that you're just MAKING SHIT UP.
<quoted text>
So, you accept that Noah's global year-long miles-deep flood never occurred. Great! A baby step forward.
<quoted text>
Well, that depends on your sect of Christianity.
But, to be clear: it doesn't matter how evil you are in life. You can rape children, torture them, kill them, steal the life savings of the elderly in their hour of need, mock the terminally ill, and advocate the genocide of entire countries, but still end up being eternally rewarded by your God. Meanwhile, another person can spend a lifetime doing charitable works for others, raising foster children in a loving home, working as teachers to educate others to become better people, bringing comfort to the terminally ill, feeding the hungry, and giving all their excess funds to the needy, and they will be punished for eternity by your God.
This...THIS...is your "ultimate morality." Which, ultimately, means that the evil are not accountable in any way for their deeds, because they can be rewarded eternally despite their evil, and the good non-believers are punished. You advocate a morality that punishes good people and rewards bad people. You accept that as a just and wise standard. That is YOUR God's rule, according to you. If you disagree, then you don't accept that faith, not deeds, is the criterion for Heaven. But, I don't expect reasonability out of you. You're too far gone at this point to suddenly stop being completely batshit ridiculous. You can't back out, so you have to push all the way through instead, going beyond ridiculous to absurd, and you have to defend the absurd to avoid changing your position.
You're the ones who like to slaughter children by millions. The rest of your rant was incomprehensible hooey.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129231
May 7, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're really showing your ignorance of reality. I didn't say there weren't stratas of different types of rock as like the Grand Canyon; I said they don't represent layers of time in flood geology. And rejected uniformatarianism DOES preclude preclude evolution all together. What I point out is that in flood geology from a young earth perspective, there is nothing data-sensitive related to the type of rock layers you find. And that is what we find, trilobites found right along with dinosaur bones. Well, any type of fossil is found right along side any other fossil. That is the reality. With evolution, you can label a trilobite late "Cambrian" and then walk a few yards and strike your pick axe to uncover a dinosaur bone and magically you've hit "Cretaceaous" rock. If you don't believe me, go to Utah in Dinosaur National Monument in Utah where this happens all the time. And the behavior of the animals in response to rising flood waters is just one of the possible explanations. There are at least three others. SO your ignorance of flood geology. And finally, please, there are no lower or upper or middle or any depth-related layers! They just declare the dates based on the fossil findings and explain it away. The layers, the depths, the dates....it's all subject to interpretation to make the theory work.
Hell you're funny. Because thine eye would offend thee, you have dutifully chosen to pluck it out.

Trilobites were extinct by the end of the Permian, 20 million years before the first dinosaur.

And no, we don't say the rock MUST be Cretaceous just because there is a dino bone in it (or Triassic or Jurassic, FYI). Index fossils are used to date rocks but only as a secondary method based on the excellent uniformity of this method established where reliable dating has been possible.

Actual geologists working in actual mining use this method to help them locate that black stuff you think you have a God given right to. And even more than evolutionary biologists, they laugh at the stupidity of "YEC geology". A few yards? Which particular few yards? Walk a few yards down the Grand Canyon and you might just have traversed a 20 million year period quite easily.

As for your claim that layers do not represent time in flood geology, even that is absurd. They still represent a compressed time sequence even in YEC and you are still no closer to answering why the fossils are stratified as they are, instead of all creatures appearing at all levels, with a gradual winnowing out of species as we rise through the column. That is the prediction your creationism would have to make. Instead you rely on the undoubted ability of grasses and ground sloths to outrun allosaurus in making your "case".

I suppose that you have no choice...if you actually learned something, you would have to accept that reality does not conform to your fairy tales.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129232
May 7, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, no faith. Just knowledge of basic chemistry. And we do have a naturalistic explanation for DNA. We DON'T have all of the answer yet. That does not mean we don't have an explanation based on natural causes.
Poor little tyke. Logic makes his brain hurt.
Typical atheist BS
You have a naturalistic explanation for DNA... you just can't tell me what it is. You don't have an answer. You have blind faith.
Give me one logical reason for believing that a genetic code can evolve into existence. I'm not interested in your philosophy. I want the science behind your beliefs.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129233
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
My world view is not amoral. Why would you make that idiotic assumption. Oops, sorry. Of course this is How's That I am responding to.
No, the geologic column is a real thing that can be observed almost anywhere on the surface of the Earth. You will not observe the whole thing, but then no geologist ever promised that you would
Poor ignorant How's That.
You have no absolute foundation for morality. Hence, you are amoral. Your morality is "whatever feels good".
You have not observed the geologic column. You have merely been guzzling evo-koolaid and have convinced yourself that it must exist because it validates your religion.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129234
May 7, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hell you're funny. Because thine eye would offend thee, you have dutifully chosen to pluck it out.
Trilobites were extinct by the end of the Permian, 20 million years before the first dinosaur.
And no, we don't say the rock MUST be Cretaceous just because there is a dino bone in it (or Triassic or Jurassic, FYI). Index fossils are used to date rocks but only as a secondary method based on the excellent uniformity of this method established where reliable dating has been possible.
Actual geologists working in actual mining use this method to help them locate that black stuff you think you have a God given right to. And even more than evolutionary biologists, they laugh at the stupidity of "YEC geology". A few yards? Which particular few yards? Walk a few yards down the Grand Canyon and you might just have traversed a 20 million year period quite easily.
As for your claim that layers do not represent time in flood geology, even that is absurd. They still represent a compressed time sequence even in YEC and you are still no closer to answering why the fossils are stratified as they are, instead of all creatures appearing at all levels, with a gradual winnowing out of species as we rise through the column. That is the prediction your creationism would have to make. Instead you rely on the undoubted ability of grasses and ground sloths to outrun allosaurus in making your "case".
I suppose that you have no choice...if you actually learned something, you would have to accept that reality does not conform to your fairy tales.
Chimney, you obviously know nothing about science if you imagine that geology validates evolution. The predicatble gradualistic sequences that you imagine do not exist. You can tell stories ad nauseum... no amount of evo-babbling will change facts.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129235
May 7, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do we do animal testing?
Animal testing in medical research has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129236
May 7, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Fossils are most often found in the places in which they are most easily found, which is where layers of the Earth's crust have been upheaved and folded up, revealing lower layers that would otherwise be incredibly difficult to access. And, even then, most fossils are found only when erosion has occurred to such an extent that there are exposed fossils of some sort to indicate their presence.
HOWEVER...just because those layers have been exposed doesn't mean they are recent. If I dig up my yard and leave the soil turned upside-down on the turf, is the stuff that is revealed from it being dug up newer than that which is found elsewhere on the surface? For instance, if I find Victorian relics (or Victorian trash) 5 feet deep, and that layer is then up-ended so it's on top and the grass is on the bottom, is the grass older than the Victorian trash?
The fact that most discovered fossils are relatively easily accessible near the surface isn't an indication of their age. And, the fact that most discovered fossils are relatively easily accessible near the surface isn't an indication that most fossils are at the surface. The fact is, it's expensive to run an excavation, both in materials and time. Just like oil companies didn't start drilling in the ocean first when there was cheaper, easier oil to be found on land, research organizations aren't going to start where the most fossils exist when there are cheaper, easier fossils to be discovered.
Now, if you have a point, please share it.
Now, if you have a point, please share it.
Evo-babbling is not science.
Show scientific evidence that a single step of gradualistic evolutionary transmutation is possible.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••