Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180376 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.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130847 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Now you're really getting desperate, LG...comparing the complexity of biologic systems to mushy spaghetti.
He's been doing that for 10 years.{sigh} He is not interested in knowing the truth. He is just trying to shut you up.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130848 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, wiseass. It means your precious theory is in deep doo-doo.
I see. So you have no intention of backing up your 'consensus' comment. No surprise.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130849 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you make these bold proclamations like, "THE FORCES OF NATURE DICTATE PRECISELY". And then when I ask you where you came up with such nonsense you accuse me of raising the bar. You're about as far removed from the scientific method as one can get!
You moved the goal posts, the forces of nature are responsible for how things work now. Deal with it.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130850 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with you evolutionists is that you dumb everything down too much. You oversimplify and over generalize. Yes, of course, everything changes, everything evolves. But there are many degrees of this and one must be more specific for the statement to have any useful meaning. Evolve, evolving, and even evolution are not bad words; I don't have a problem with the words themselves. It's the way they are abused and the way evolutionists equivocate by abusing them is the problem. Distinguishing micro from macro is helpful but amazingly, the evolutionists are offended by this because they see it as a threat to their grand deception.
You admitted everything evolves too, you cannot recount that. If a biological organism's DNA changes, that's called evolution.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130851 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You admitted everything evolves too, you cannot recount that. If a biological organism's DNA changes, that's called evolution.
Yes, but in the opposite direction of what your theory requires.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130852 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You moved the goal posts, the forces of nature are responsible for how things work now. Deal with it.
"Deal with it". Now that is scientific.(Not!)
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130853 May 21, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. So you have no intention of backing up your 'consensus' comment. No surprise.
no, I see. you don't read anything I post anyway

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130854 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
no, I see. you don't read anything I post anyway
On the contrary, I usually do.

So your 'consensus' was just bullshit. Figures.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130855 May 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You admitted everything evolves too, you cannot recount that. If a biological organism's DNA changes, that's called evolution.
Even if one conceded that "everything evolves"...
How does that prove than man evolved from a microbe?

All humans can run...
Does that prove that all humans can run 50 miles an hour?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130856 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, wiseass. It means your precious theory is in deep doo-doo.
ROTFLMAO!

Nobody tells jokes like the Urb and How's That for Stupid team!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130857 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ, you lost the argument on mathematics.
Now you're moving the goalposts again.
You think everyone should just blindly accept your evo-fairytales on faith. No scientific explanations required.
Three lies in one post. Good one How's That.

You never beat me in a mathematical argument. You lost all of them with me. That can be shown by how you changed your attempts to argue mathematically.

I did not move the goal posts. Now you are simply parroting an expression that you obviously do not understand.

Third, no, I think people should accept evolution since it is the only idea that has scientific evidence that supports it. But you are a total retard that refuses to even learn what is and what is not evidence.

The first triple fail of the day definitely earns an "How's That for Stupid?"
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130858 May 21, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, I usually do.
So your 'consensus' was just bullshit. Figures.
No, you are bs.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130859 May 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
ROTFLMAO!
Nobody tells jokes like the Urb and How's That for Stupid team!!
?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130860 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if one conceded that "everything evolves"...
How does that prove than man evolved from a microbe?
All humans can run...
Does that prove that all humans can run 50 miles an hour?
That alone doesn't, fool. To understand that all life is related you have to look at all of the evidence. KittenKoder pointed out that you already admitted that evolution occurs. If you admit that it occurs then you have already admitted microbe to man, even if you do not want to admit it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130861 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
?
Stop, stop!!

I am still laughing.

Your "Who, moi?" approach is not bad either.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130862 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are bs.
Wow, you're really running on empty. You can't back up your assertions so I'm the bullshitter. It really pisses you off when you get cornered, doesn't it?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130863 May 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Third, no, I think people should accept evolution since it is the only idea that has scientific evidence that supports it. But you are a total retard that refuses to even learn what is and what is not evidence.
?"
You have arbititrarily dismissed intelligent design as "unscientific".
Therefore, you are left with only one choice...evolution.
That is not science...it's religion.
A scientists looks at all of the evidence. He doesn't fix a pre drawn conclusion and force all of his observations into that paradigm.
You fail to see that you have no scientific evidence.
You have nothing more than recylced dogma that has been soundly debunked over and over again.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130864 May 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That alone doesn't, fool. To understand that all life is related you have to look at all of the evidence. KittenKoder pointed out that you already admitted that evolution occurs. If you admit that it occurs then you have already admitted microbe to man, even if you do not want to admit it.
Parroting cheap dogma is not science.
If you claim that man evolved from a microbe, then prove it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130865 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have arbititrarily dismissed intelligent design as "unscientific".
Therefore, you are left with only one choice...evolution.
That is not science...it's religion.
A scientists looks at all of the evidence. He doesn't fix a pre drawn conclusion and force all of his observations into that paradigm.
You fail to see that you have no scientific evidence.
You have nothing more than recylced dogma that has been soundly debunked over and over again.
No, not arbitrarily. Quit using words that you do not know the meaning of:

"Definition of ARBITRARY

1
: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2
a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government>
b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3
a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments A. J. Toynbee>
b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary "

IDiocy is rejected because it is not science. It has no testable claims and almost every absolute claim ever made has been busted.

Evolution of the eye is too complex, busted long ago. So they learned from that. They got tougher questions.

Behe liked to claim that there were no scientific papers explaining the evolution of the blood clotting system. He claimed it was "irreducibly complex". He was almost buried by a fort of papers and books on that topic at the Dover trial. That is the trial where he lost all scientific credibility. Only morons who put god before clear thinking pay him any attention these days.

A third was the bacterial flagellum. A complex spinning little motor that looked impossible to solve. Guess what, it has been solved. Step by step they know how it evolved from the proteins involved. I am feeling generous, since a topic like this would involve multiple scientific papers, which have been written, I can link a simple video that explains it. I don't think the creatards could understand it but other could. Any requests, even those from our creatards friends to see this video will be honored.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130866 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Parroting cheap dogma is not science.
If you claim that man evolved from a microbe, then prove it.
Then why is that all that you can do?

I have offered to help you learn what is and what is not evidence so that you can debate better.

Most people are not idiots like you and Urb. They know that scientists will not believe something because of "dogma". They know that scientists are an evidence seeking group. When you lie and say there is no evidence it is clear to them that you are either a liar, an idiot, or both.

I am constantly offering to cure the idiot side of you. I can't stop you from lying, but almost anybody can learn if they try.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 1,416
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Genesis Enigma 163,074
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 hr Aura Mytha 222,270
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 20 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,461
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web