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

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#129840 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
None of the above is legitimate science. These are merely assumptions founded on a predetermined paradigm of evolution.
Please explain which parts you can dispute and how.
LowellGuy

United States

#129841 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem remains.
All biology curriculums teach that evolutiondidit without intelligent design. It is ASSUMED that all of the complexities of nature can be explained by atheistic forces alone. This is scientifically illogical, because, contrary to what you say... an intelligent force IS NECESSARY to explain many phenomena of nature.
Furthermore, even if you contend that everything can be explained by naturalism, such a statement is false because man simply doesn't understand many biological processes.
No one knows how sea turtles navigate in the open ocean. No one knows how such a capacity could have evolved.
Why is it dogmatically assumed that "evolutiondidit" without any assistance from intelligent design?"
Only things that exist are able to cause natural phenomena to occur. As soon as you can demonstrate the existence of your God, it will be included as a possible cause for natural phenomena. Until then, God is right next to unicorns and gremlins and leprechauns.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#129842 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
None of the above is legitimate science. These are merely assumptions founded on a predetermined paradigm of evolution.
<<From the same article>>

"The international research team, led by the Laboratorio Nacional de Genůmica para la Biodiversidad (LANGEBIO) in Mexico and the University at Buffalo, will report its findings on May 12 in Nature.

The study was directed by LANGEBIO Director and Professor Luis Herrera-Estrella and UB Professor of Biological Sciences Victor Albert, with contributions from scientists in the United States, Mexico, China, Singapore, Spain and Germany."

Yup. Pretty clear that all these scientists from all these countries all across the world are in cahoots.

[/SARCASM]

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#129843 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You still haven't answered the question.
Why do over 1,000 fully developed pterosaurs exist in the fossil record, and every one is fully perfected in powered flight?
Assuming an "intermediate" **DOES** exist at some point in it's evolution, we have yet to discover it. Personally, I would think it logical to assume an intermediate of SOME description would be found, but it is what it is.

More importantly, if we discovered tomorrow this intermediate creature, what would be your reaction?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129844 May 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
As soon as there is evidence of the supernatural, it will stop being rejected. Is that unreasonable to you?
If you see spilled milk in the kitchen, are gremlins on your list of possible causes? Do you bother figuring out if gremlins did it?
Why do you compare spilled milk on the kitchen floor to the existence of the greatest complexity known to man (DNA)?
Why do you assume that random forces can produce such a thing, when you have no observational evidence of such?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129845 May 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<<From the same article>>
"The international research team, led by the Laboratorio Nacional de Genůmica para la Biodiversidad (LANGEBIO) in Mexico and the University at Buffalo, will report its findings on May 12 in Nature.
The study was directed by LANGEBIO Director and Professor Luis Herrera-Estrella and UB Professor of Biological Sciences Victor Albert, with contributions from scientists in the United States, Mexico, China, Singapore, Spain and Germany."
Yup. Pretty clear that all these scientists from all these countries all across the world are in cahoots.
[/SARCASM]
They are not necessarily "in cahoots". They are simply blinded by the paradigm of evolution. None of what that article presented constituted observational science.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#129846 May 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Have fun reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_in_rel...
Did you post that reference to prove once and for all that you are complete evotarded moron? How does that support your idiotic statement, "Yet Faraday went against religious superstition to do all that."? It doesn't even mention Christianity. It wasn't even relevant. Are you this friggin' stupid or is this what darwinism does to you?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129847 May 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming an "intermediate" **DOES** exist at some point in it's evolution, we have yet to discover it. Personally, I would think it logical to assume an intermediate of SOME description would be found, but it is what it is.
More importantly, if we discovered tomorrow this intermediate creature, what would be your reaction?
I would be very surprised, especially considering the fact that no one can even imagine what such a creature would look like.

This represents yet another failed prediction of Darwinism.
If pterosaurs gradually evolved, and over 1,000 specimens have been recovered spanning a time period of over 100 million years, then one would logically expect to see numerous gradations of functional anatomy.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129848 May 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Only things that exist are able to cause natural phenomena to occur. As soon as you can demonstrate the existence of your God, it will be included as a possible cause for natural phenomena. Until then, God is right next to unicorns and gremlins and leprechauns.
You reject the evidences of God only because of your faith that evolutiondidit.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#129849 May 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming an "intermediate" **DOES** exist at some point in it's evolution, we have yet to discover it. Personally, I would think it logical to assume an intermediate of SOME description would be found, but it is what it is.
More importantly, if we discovered tomorrow this intermediate creature, what would be your reaction?
It ain't gonna happen Kong.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#129850 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not necessarily "in cahoots". They are simply blinded by the paradigm of evolution. None of what that article presented constituted observational science.
I am quite sure that each of those researchers would be fascinated by your logical refutation of their findings.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129851 May 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Show us what you consider "legitimate science."
If radiometric dating were "legitimate science", then calibration curves would be calculated based on analysis of lava flows of historically known dates. All data would be included, including all results that conflict with assumptions of evolution. If it is concluded that radiometric dating is invalid for dates of less than 2 million years (as has been determined by Geochron Labs), then no biologist would claim that Australopithecus is 1.7 million years old, because there would be no scientific evidence to make such a claim.

If assessment of the fossil record were "legitimate science", data would not be filtered. The lack of intermediate species would be squarely addressed, rather than rationalized away with the ridiculous dogma that "all species are transitional."
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129852 May 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You suffer from the usual creatard illusion that an "intermediate" is some special kind of creature different from a plain old species.
If some descendent of a sugar glider eventually becomes more adept at flight, the sugar glider will prove to have been intermediate to that creature. But its functional today. As its ancestors were functional before they could glide at all.
Predictably, you confine your comments to simplistic examples.
Show me a single step in the evolution of a rat (or any terrestrial mammal) to a sugar glider. Show me the first step and how it could have possibly imparted a survival advantage. Show me how any of the instincts to conduct gliding could have occurred by chance.
All you have proposed are evo-fairytales.7
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129853 May 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you describe the mechanism of ID first? No mechanism, no explanation.
I can't describe the mechanism.
Now let's see you describe the mechanism of abiogenesis... I'll make it easy... tell me how the first DNA self-organized.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#129854 May 13, 2013
It is one thing to criticize the evolution-based assumptions in radiometric dating which has been shown to be highly subjective due to the many assumptions that must be used. A much stronger argument can be made about the signature and proximity of the rocks themselves and the many anomalous features. For example, two or three different layers with no erosion between them, bent rock, polystrat fossils, petrified trees that extend through several layers, etc.

A study should be done which maps a sufficient number of evolutionary disparate fossil species (ex. dinosaurs vs. hominids) by spatial coordinates (GPS, depth). A brief review of a sample of fossil finds for both dinosaur and hominid has them both in Catalonia, Spain. How many instances are there where two evolutionary disparate fossils are found in close proximity to each other? And when this occurs, what is the nature of the rock layers? This type of study may not be possible if the researcher is not required to report the exact location in the published paper. This may have to be done by interview. If anybody can find info on this I'd love to see it.

Obviously my motivation is clear. I can also see why evolutionists would not be interested.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#129855 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The finding of a rabbit in the precambrian is ridiculous to begin with, because the precambrian is entirely marine fossils. You assume that no mammals lived during that time period. What evidence do you have of that? What scientific evidence do you have that radiometric dating can provide any reference to when an animal perished?
Of course, I would settle for any time prior to the development of the mammal-like reptiles. This is because there are highly particular features that developed in these creatures progressively and exist in mammals, such as the development of the 3-boned middle ear from the jaw bones.

So cambrian, ordovician, permian. about 170 million years for you to play with from the first appearance of land animals.

You wont find any mammals there!

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#129856 May 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
But... But... He knows all about gravity!
{snicker}
I was waiting on chimney to lecture him on gravity, I think he can be called a professor of it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#129857 May 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
It is one thing to criticize the evolution-based assumptions in radiometric dating which has been shown to be highly subjective due to the many assumptions that must be used.
You mean, the physics based assumptions. You know, like the rate of radioactive decay, etc.
A much stronger argument can be made about the signature and proximity of the rocks themselves and the many anomalous features.
There is no argument you can make that geologists have not stomped all over decades ago. That is what is so laughable. You are AFRAID to read a well researched and comprehensive article on the layers of the geologic column and yet feel confident in pronouncing your absurdities as if you have a freaking tiny clue what you are talking about.

Honestly, its like hearing a 4 year old telling us why the world had to be flat otherwise everything would fall off.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#129858 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Predictably, you confine your comments to simplistic examples.
Show me a single step in the evolution of a rat (or any terrestrial mammal) to a sugar glider. Show me the first step and how it could have possibly imparted a survival advantage. Show me how any of the instincts to conduct gliding could have occurred by chance.
All you have proposed are evo-fairytales.7
Predictably, you are still sharpshooting. Any "first steps" might have nothing to do with gliding.

Your claim of fairytales is more silliness. You DEMAND that I offer a just-so story to describe the "first step" then you complain that I might do so.

What I can do is point to the enormous range of jumping, tree climbing, controlled jumping, gliding, and flight, that we see in creatures today, so that the progression from one stage to the next is not unreasonable.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#129859 May 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong, what you assume to be self-evident is not.
You define "supernatural" as "God".
Yet you accept "supernatural" events in explaining evolution.
Here's an interesting quote from Dr. L.C. Eiseley:
"With the failure of these many efforts to explain the origin of life, science was thus left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
"
.....and of course you quote an ICR site http://www.icr.org/article/133/ that engages in yet another quote-mine:

<<begin cut/paste>>

In context the original quote reads:

With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past. My use of the term mythology is perhaps a little harsh.[42]

Eiseley further states:

I would not be understood to speak ill of scientific effort.... It is only that somewhere among these seeds and beetle shells and abandoned grasshopper legs I find something that is not accounted for very clearly in the dissections to the ultimate virus or crystal or protein particle. Even if the secret is contained in these things, in other words, I do not think it will yield to the kind of analysis our science is capable of making.

Eiseley appears to be saying not that origin of life theories are unscientific but rather that life will not be explained by inspecting living things with our current level of technology.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_quotes_o...

<<end cut/paste>>

Why do fundies find it necessary to lie so much?

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
Darwin on the rocks 13 min Kenedy njoroge 352
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 27 min DanFromSmithville 120,720
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 33 min Bluenose 694
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 47 min DanFromSmithville 138,171
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 3 hr woodtick57 361
Monkey VS Man 23 hr Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Sun TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE