Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

defender

United States

#130464 May 18, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>THis is richly ironic, doesn't everyone think? LOL!

defender wrote, "<quoted text>
Life changes every second... Do have any idea how many chemical changes your body goes through on one hour?
You seem to have a problem with complexity (from reading your posts)
Don't feel bad all evolutionist have a huge problem with it..."

Err, no. All we have is annoying Liars for Jesus CLAIMING we have a problem with complexity.

In reality, you Jesus Freaks cannot even DEFINE it in the context you are using it.

defender wrote, "<quoted text>
Bottom line: Life and the continuation of life and dependency upon other life to survive is a working system that overwhelmingly points to an intelligent design "

Only if you're an uneducated, dishonest Jesus Freak who NEED so-called "Intelligent Design" to be so. So far, science can explain everything by natural means, so we'll leave the supernatural hand-waving and Arguments From Incredulity to you guys.
Lol... Science can explain everything by natural means huh?... Maybe with a little help from ape jaw bones placed on human remains or getting Don King as spokesman...
defender

United States

#130465 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>That's what I said, life evolves, the rest you posted is not important, you said that life evolves, that is a fact, life evolves.
And have another glass of the kool-aid dear... It's hot outside...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130466 May 18, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
And have another glass of the kool-aid dear... It's hot outside...
So you are saying life does not evolve but that life does evolve. That's a contradiction, and though religious myth can get away with such nonsense, science cannot. Life either evolves or it does not, if it did not, we'd all look identical.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#130467 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying life does not evolve but that life does evolve. That's a contradiction, and though religious myth can get away with such nonsense, science cannot. Life either evolves or it does not, if it did not, we'd all look identical.
His head revolves, sorta like Linda Blair. It's not demonic, he just weird like that.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130468 May 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Urb, your claims have been busted so many times that it is legendary.
The one thing you have going for you is your stick-to-itivism.
You don't give up. You are shown to be wrong time after time but you simply ignore the evidence. Truly they were thinking of you when the coined the term "creatard".
And I'm still waiting for you first actual "bust".
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#130469 May 18, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
And have another glass of the kool-aid dear... It's hot outside...
You seem to have an affinity for KoolAid. Been drinking Pastor Billy Bob's for too long?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130470 May 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The Earth's magnetic field is not steadily decaying. We can observe its continual change in strength. It gets weaker and stronger and even reverses.
Some creatard idiots took a very limited sampling of the data and claimed that it will decay to nothing.
One thing to remember about creatardism is that it is self contradicting. They will adopt parts of real science here and there to try to explain nature, but since they base their premises upon a falsehood they end up contradicting themselves sooner or later.
Only since we've actually been measuring accurately for the last 100 years or so it has it been steadily decreasing. But if you include evotarded, made up "just-so" stories, maybe you are right.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130471 May 18, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Lies and distortions. TYpical Christian behavior when faced with overwhelming evidence.
By the way, what year did the Scopes Trial take place? 1925, right?
Don't you think a lot has been discovered in terms of fossil and DNA in the past 90-some years? LOL
At least you have the good sense to agree with me. And yes, it was a long time ago; however, this was a very important turning point in the establishment of the voodoo evotarded darwin zombee indoctrination of people's minds. Important history in the decline of science. And even though we all know most of the initial evotard dogma was wrong, it still appears in public school textbooks contaminating the minds of our youth.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#130472 May 18, 2013
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.h...

Christian Creationist Claim CD701:

The earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rate indicating that the earth must be young.

Response:

The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006).

Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.

T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth's interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser's dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the "current" caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling's theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.

Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.
Links:

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgoo...

Thompson, Tim, 1997. On creation science and the alleged decay of the earth's magnetic field. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.htm...

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#130473 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Embryonic recapitulation, peppered moth, vestigial organs, etc. Now all known to be false. But they still got you to believe in it.
Which religion proved them false and how did it do it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#130474 May 18, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no... Hold the phone!!! Looks like we are getting somewhere now!! It's the (drum roll)... Casimir Effect!!!(aka the force) another pathetic attempt (and an old one at that) to save the failing foolishness!! How come I just know you're on the waiting list for the first real life light saber? This is even better than Kong's metabolism theory!!
I needed a got laugh this morning... Thanks SZ...

The Casimir Effect is observable, testable and reproducible.

Of course what you apparently hear in your ignorance is "Blah, blah, blah,..blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. MAGIC POOFING IS REAL. Blah blah blah blah blah blah."

Maybe you need to stick a smart fish in your ear.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#130475 May 18, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again science is about truth... Not speculation or wishful thinking... You pervert theories as facts in the attempt to destroy others faith and get off on doing so (sick) when all along your own faith (evolution) does not hold water...
I don't use a bible or try to convert anyone... I simply point out the fact.. Fact.. That you cannot scientifically prove your claims ( not even close ) so no matter how much you ridicule and bully someone they will know you are full of (cuss word).....
Just because you got taken in by those who feed on the weak and simple minded doesn't mean the rest of us can't think for ourselves... Have a great day!!!

The master of projection back at work. You got your ignorance and your incredulity and you are on the job.

Unfortunately it is more difficult for educated people. See the Dunning-Kruger effect for more details.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#130476 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
comĚplex
[adj., v. kuhm-pleks, kom-pleks; n. kom-pleks] Show IPA
adjective
1.
composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system.
2.
characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.
3.
so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with: a complex problem.
Cells are much more complex that those things you listed. Computers are simple compared to cells. Processing information is just one of thousands of functions the cell must perform every second. The information packing density of DNA alone dwarfs anything Man has ever designed or ever hopes to design.

So, you are saying it is a word without meaning without knowing the context and comparison level.

I agree.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#130477 May 18, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Head down to the library and read up on some basic science for the simple answers you seek... But I'll play on this one... Life changes every second... Do have any idea how many chemical changes your body goes through on one hour?
You seem to have a problem with complexity (from reading your posts)
Don't feel bad all evolutionist have a huge problem with it...
Bottom line: Life and the continuation of life and dependency upon other life to survive is a working system that overwhelmingly points to an intelligent design... It's the 900 pound gorilla in the room that evolutionist can't bare to admit... Truth... It's what's for dinner!!

I count four major fallacies in the above post.

Anyone want to check me?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#130478 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Did you know that all the evidence presented at the famous Scopes Monkey trial to support evolution turned out all to be false?

False, that is a creotardist lie.

http://faculty.smu.edu/jclam/science_religion...
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Did you know that all the Galapagos Finches are still the same species and are now known to interbreed succesfully during drought conditions?

They are actually a ring species. Only birds from relatively nearby islands can interbreed. For example finches from San Cristobal and Fernanadia cannot breed.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Did you know that the Earth's magnetic field strength has been measured for over 100 years and we know precisely the half-life of its steady decay?

There is no known half-life. The earths magnetic field has varied greatly over 4.5 billion years. Generally it is weakening. Another 20 billion years or so it will probably be gone.

is this what you came here to do? spam us with lies?

If so, then nicely done!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#130479 May 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>A belief in evolution requires denial of reality. Just saying that a cell is not complex only reveals your ignorance of biology. If you think mindless forces can create the greatest know complexity in the universe,, the burden of proof is upon you to explain how.

You are confused as to the facts.

No one "believes in" evolution. Evolution is simply and observable phenomena of nature. If you want to claim that evolution is "complex" well you can define your terms and give it a go. But the claim that evolution does not exist makes no more sense than saying gravity does not exist or that gravity is too complex to exist.

It is simply irrational.

Remember, the Theory of Evolution EXPLAINS the fact(s) of evolution. It is not the same thing as evolution itself.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#130480 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Average human body has 100 trillion cells and each cell as DNA containing 6 billion nucleotides. So 6 billion times 100 trillion equals 6 X 10^23 nucleotides in the human body. There is nothing man has ever designed or ever hopes to design that even comes remotely close to that number.

Likewise (and equally foolish) is the fact that the earth is made up of 133,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000 atoms (1.33*10^50).

There is nothing man has ever designed or ever hopes to design that even comes remotely close to that number.

So what?
defender

United States

#130481 May 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>I count four major fallacies in the above post.

Anyone want to check me?
You can count to four?... All by yourself?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130482 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And I'm still waiting for you first actual "bust".
You are an ignorant git who would not recognize a bust if it rolled over you like a steamroller. In fact that has happened many times.

You have never made one valid argument against evolution. You are an amazing bundle of "wrong".

But then that is true of most creatards. That is why the "tard" is so often attached to the description of them.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130483 May 18, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
You can count to four?... All by yourself?
In other words defender knows he is spewing bullshit.

Another liar for Jesus.

Pathetic.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min ChristineM 171,640
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 1 min Paul Porter1 258
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 min Paul Porter1 142,524
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Gary Coaldigger 20,536
Science Suggests That A Quantum Creation Force ... (Jun '14) 53 min Paul Porter1 23
evolution is correct. prove me wrong 2 hr Paul Porter1 4
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 4 hr Paul Porter1 12
More from around the web