Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,458

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

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129238 May 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Animal testing in medical research has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
Answer the question: why do we do animal testing?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129239 May 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Please tell us what YOU think the theory of evolution says, in your own words. No copy/paste. No plagiarism by leaving out the source of your copy/paste. Just tell us what the theory of evolution is.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129240 May 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no absolute foundation for morality. Hence, you are amoral. Your morality is "whatever feels good".
If you were absolutely convinced that your God had commanded you to kidnap, rape, torture, and kill an infant, would you do it?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129241 May 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Since when is "God did it" ever a valid means of explaining the unknown?

Was it a valid means of explaining lightning until we actually understood how it happens?

Was it a valid means of explaining earthquakes until we actually understood how they happen?

Was it a valid means of explaining disease until we actually understood how it happens?

Was it a valid means of explaining weather patterns until we actually understood how they happen?

Why is "I don't know" worse than sticking God into the gap of our understanding of the universe, and what useful purpose (other than satisfying your need to feel like you have an explanation regardless of whether it's correct or not) does that serve?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129242 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.
So, you're saying chemistry is random?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129243 May 7, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer the question: why do we do animal testing?
Humans and rats share homologous features. If you think that is compelling evidence of evolution, you have a very weak theory indeed. Why does the use of animal testing require a belief in common descent?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129244 May 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Your DNA is not identical to the DNA in either of your parents.

Done.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129245 May 7, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, now you move the goalposts. Good for you. You're a liar.
Are you a mammal? Yes or no.
Humans are mammals. How does that prove evolution?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129246 May 7, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when is "God did it" ever a valid means of explaining the unknown?
Was it a valid means of explaining lightning until we actually understood how it happens?
Was it a valid means of explaining earthquakes until we actually understood how they happen?
Was it a valid means of explaining disease until we actually understood how it happens?
Was it a valid means of explaining weather patterns until we actually understood how they happen?
Why is "I don't know" worse than sticking God into the gap of our understanding of the universe, and what useful purpose (other than satisfying your need to feel like you have an explanation regardless of whether it's correct or not) does that serve?
Why do you blindly assume that evolutiondidit?
Why do you arbitrarily fill in all the gaps of man's knowledge with evolutionary assumptions?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129247 May 7, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying chemistry is random?
Chemistry is not totally random.
That observation in no way justifies the assumption that it can make a meaningful genetic code. Dr. Charles Thaxton, a physical chemist, wrote,

"No one to date has published data indicating that bonding preferences could have had any role in coding the DNA molecules."

So what you're parroting is dogma, not science. You IMAGINE that the non-random properties of chemistry justify a belief in abiogenesis. There is no science whatsoever behind the faith that random molecular interactions could ever result in a genetic code.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129248 May 7, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your DNA is not identical to the DNA in either of your parents.
Done.
What a load of BS.
You have no concept of what the theory of evolution is.
Genetic variability is not evolution.
You think that because my DNA is not identical to the DNA of my parents, that you have proven that I evolved from a worm? Does that constitute the depth of your knowledge of biology?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129249 May 7, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when is "God did it" ever a valid means of explaining the unknown?
?
Since when is "Evolution did it" ever a valid means of explaining the unknown?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#129250 May 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
Decent sized oil fields with drilling operations have paleo labs. I got to visit one on a large Shell Oil claim. One of the scientists working there showed how identifying different fossils could identify and age strata to help find oil bearing formations.

Contrary to what Wingnuts like Urb like to claim, it was staffed with oil company people looking for oil and not Liberal Atheist Professors looking for grants.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129251 May 7, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Decent sized oil fields with drilling operations have paleo labs. I got to visit one on a large Shell Oil claim. One of the scientists working there showed how identifying different fossils could identify and age strata to help find oil bearing formations.
Contrary to what Wingnuts like Urb like to claim, it was staffed with oil company people looking for oil and not Liberal Atheist Professors looking for grants.
None of that circular logic proves the ages of the earth's strata. Fossils identify different strata. So what? How does that observation prove that a given stratum is millions of years old?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129252 May 7, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Decent sized oil fields with drilling operations have paleo labs. I got to visit one on a large Shell Oil claim. One of the scientists working there showed how identifying different fossils could identify and age strata to help find oil bearing formations.
Contrary to what Wingnuts like Urb like to claim, it was staffed with oil company people looking for oil and not Liberal Atheist Professors looking for grants.
Of course Urb and company will simply deny this fact. There must be some sort of conspiracy not to hire creationist geologists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129253 May 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>None of that circular logic proves the ages of the earth's strata. Fossils identify different strata. So what? How does that observation prove that a given stratum is millions of years old?
The age of the strata was derived by other means. The fossils are simply markers. It is not circular reasoning. Even before radiometric dating was discovered it was a well known fact that various sedimentary rocks were hundreds of millions of years old.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129254 May 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The age of the strata was derived by other means. The fossils are simply markers. It is not circular reasoning. Even before radiometric dating was discovered it was a well known fact that various sedimentary rocks were hundreds of millions of years old.
That's 100% BS, SZ.
It was 100% BELIEVED that strata was hundreds of millions of years old. Radiometric dating has been selectively used to validate what was assumed. Cherry picked data is scientific fraud. It is a universal characteristic of quackery.
I've already debunked your millions-of-year old strata argument by demonstrating that T.rex and allosaurus fossils are not their purported ages. So why do you persist in clinging to dogma that has been scientifically proven false? Your anti-science sentiment is obvious. Your religion takes priority over everything in your life... and you're willing to lie and distort truth to justify your amoral lifestyle.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129255 May 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That's 100% BS, SZ.
It was 100% BELIEVED that strata was hundreds of millions of years old. Radiometric dating has been selectively used to validate what was assumed. Cherry picked data is scientific fraud. It is a universal characteristic of quackery.
I've already debunked your millions-of-year old strata argument by demonstrating that T.rex and allosaurus fossils are not their purported ages. So why do you persist in clinging to dogma that has been scientifically proven false? Your anti-science sentiment is obvious. Your religion takes priority over everything in your life... and you're willing to lie and distort truth to justify your amoral lifestyle.
Nope, you have no idea of the history of geology.

Nor has radiometric data been cherry picked. There are a few exceptions and the reason why they were exceptions has been found. The idea holds up extremely well.

All you have are lies HST, why do creatards lie all of the time?

Because without lies they have nothing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129256 May 7, 2013
And How's That for Stupid you have never debunked the idea of age of T-Rex.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129257 May 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Humans are mammals. How does that prove evolution?
Humans are mammals. Good. We have a starting point.

There are evolution denialists who say humans are not mammals, so we have to determine a baseline.

So, humans are mammals. Please, tell us what qualifies something as a mammal.

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) 10 min HOG_ the Hand of God 120,609
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 1 hr The Dude 359
Darwin on the rocks 2 hr The Dude 350
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Dogen 138,169
Monkey VS Man 15 hr Bluenose 14
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Sun Chimney1 692
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Sun TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE