Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 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.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#131412 May 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Science? What would you know about science? You're an evolutionist. And compared to evolutionist peer-review, Creation science is MUCH BETTER!
Perhaps not better, but certainly more consistent. Since no methodology is presented in Creationist articles, they ALWAYS pass Creationist peer review.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#131413 May 26, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps not better, but certainly more consistent. Since no methodology is presented in Creationist articles, they ALWAYS pass Creationist peer review.
And the Creationist review standard is primarily "Does it conform to our literal interpretation of the Bible?"

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#131414 May 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Science? What would you know about science? You're an evolutionist. And compared to evolutionist peer-review, Creation science is MUCH BETTER!
Creation science is bullsh!t. Why do you people keep trying to get religion into classrooms??

Creation science = Junkscience

Intelligent Design = Junkscience
HTS

Mandan, ND

#131415 May 26, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to explain why the above is the case - otherwise we may come to the conclusion you don't actually understand the subject.
A mutated bacteria can perpetuate the trait without the need to reproduce with another mutated individual.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#131416 May 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
A mutated bacteria can perpetuate the trait without the need to reproduce with another mutated individual.
But variability is increased with sexual reproduction, the more variability the more natural selection has to work on.

Its fine, just dismiss this with your normal 'its all athesist Evo-babble' line -it's a winning technique.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131417 May 26, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
But variability is increased with sexual reproduction, the more variability the more natural selection has to work on.
Its fine, just dismiss this with your normal 'its all athesist Evo-babble' line -it's a winning technique.
You made a serious spelling error.

Your last line should have read "it's a whining technique."
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#131418 May 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You made a serious spelling error.
Your last line should have read "it's a whining technique."
:-)
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#131419 May 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation science is bullsh!t. Why do you people keep trying to get religion into classrooms??
Creation science = Junkscience
Intelligent Design = Junkscience
Religion? I thought that was your way.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#131420 May 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion? I thought that was your way.
Nope, when it comes to science you guys are all about the religion above all else

"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."

http://creation.com/about-us

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#131421 May 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion? I thought that was your way.
No, I deny that religionss and ALL gods are real.

Too much evidence against them.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#131422 May 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>And compared to evolutionist peer-review, Creation science is MUCH BETTER!
Oh, right. That's why the vast majority of the world's scientists and industries, use it every day to discover exciting new scientific discoveries and develop cutting edge technologies ...[/major sarcasm].

But go ahead, dazzle us with the many things that have come into being directly as a result of this "creation science" of yours over the past few years ... or decades ... or centuries.

You may want to start with ... that amazing discovery of Noah's ark ... oh, wait. Those were all fake, weren't they?

Or that fabulous new medical treatment for leprosy and skin diseases that involves sprinkling the blood of a sacrificed dove on the afflicted's toes.

Or the revolutionary animal husbandry technique that allows cloth manufacturers to forgo having to dye their wool by allowing sheep to copulate in front of patterned sticks, thereby having the coats of their offspring have the same pattern as the sticks their parents were looking at when they were being conceived.

Or that high tech solution that allows the sun to stand still in the sky so that solar panels get more sun light every day.

Etc..

Can you name anything, anything at all that was a direct result of "creation science". Anything at all in the 2300+ years that your "science" has been around?

If "creation science" is so much better than mainstream science SOMEONE must have been using it to make lots of money, right?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#131423 May 26, 2013
MIDutch, you be SMOKIN' tonite!:)
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#131424 May 26, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, when it comes to science you guys are all about the religion above all else
"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."
http://creation.com/about-us
Where did that come from? That was an incredibly lucid argument! Was it sincere?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131425 May 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're forgetting that creation science journals ARE peer reviewed, and there are several fine papers that say just that. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so.(Denial of Facts - part of the grand atheistic conspiracy.)
They're not peer-reviewed. That you think they are in no way makes it true. It only demonstrates that you have no idea what "peer review" means. Your ignorance does nothing to support your argument.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131426 May 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Science? What would you know about science? You're an evolutionist. And compared to evolutionist peer-review, Creation science is MUCH BETTER!
Have you found a single medical breakthrough, technological innovation, or other useful application that has resulted from "creation science?" It's been more than a year that I've been asking for one, and you never manage to scrounge one up. See, science results in useful discoveries because it increases our understanding of reality. If creation science does this, then there must be useful applications that have come about directly as a result of that research, and it must be getting applied in some way somewhere. Just let us know about ONE of these things. Just one will shut us all up. That's all it takes. So...whenever you're ready.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131427 May 26, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
There have been several theories of evolution proposed over the last 200 years.(look up the concept Lamarck's explanation for evolution.)
But biologists have settled on one central Theory of Evolution and is centered on Darwin's theory.
Thus more than one theory has been around.
Scientists don't "settle" on anything. Clearly, you don't know what scientists are like.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131428 May 26, 2013
UnderstandPeople wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, my premise was just to mention that those laws behave in a way that is constrained under a specific standard.
But since you have mentioned the argument of static vs. variable, I will attempt to explain how the laws of chemistry are somewhat variable within this static constraint.
This is demonstrated by every tangible thing that exists from solids, liquids, gases and aqueous formed solutions.
Consider these simple examples of the variance of dihydrogen monoxide (H20):
1.Freeze liquified H20, becomes solid H20 (ice).
2.Heat liquified H20, evaporates into gaseous H20 (steam).
3.Alas, the condensation of steamed H20 becomes liquid H20 again.
As you see, H20 takes 3 forms of variance.
Yet, it is static as H20.
What constraint keeps it as H20, you might say?
Their number of electrons to form a bond.
What made the bond have the ability to form? The static constraint known as a law of chemistry.
Yet, within that law, variance occurs.
MORE VARIANCE with hydrogen and oxygen-
Think about pH
What about alkalines? OH
What about acids? H
Now, introduce Carbon into the picture.
You will find:
-Some Carbohydrates-
glucose - C6H12O6
starch - C12H22O11
Deoxyribose - C5H10O4
Ribose - C5H10O5
-Alcohols-
ethanol alcohol - C2H5OH
isopropyl alcohol -(CH3)2CHOH
methane - CH4
propanol-CH3CH2CH2OH
etc.
The above had shown the many dynamic forms that are held by a static constraint, which in turn, enables chemical bonding.
And to think that us, as carbon based beings, are just a few carbons, hydrogens, or oxygens away from drinking gasoline or acid instead of drinking wine. Isn't that a murky thought of variance?
But, what if the constraint itself was variable?
Then that means that you swallow a Dr. Pepper and soon as it reaches halfway to your stomach,
it will turn into syrupy octane CH3(CH2)6CH3
while it travels down into your esophagus. LOL
Therefore, some 'judiciary' stimulant, if you will, had to hold true to prevent these rather unfavorable but
dynamic occurrences within the laws of chemistry from happening.
Evidence is that they exist in those ways.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x-u755964oE/SdH8BLM...
One way or another

United States

#131429 May 26, 2013
One way or another | 9 min ago
The more water an area has, the more rainfall an area will have, unless methane is being released in that area.

Look to all the areas that have dams and look to all the wells being mined with methane.

Coal-bed methane development is a relatively new form of natural gas extraction that has exploded in the Powder River basin since 1997, with more than 10,000 gas wells already sunk on private and state lands. It is like mother's milk to state officials, because it produces both tax revenues and campaign contributions from the energy companies. "They are so oriented to the energy industry that they could give a red rat's ass about a rancher," Swartz bristles. "I'm as serious as I can be about that. There's not one of them that is concerned about a rancher around here."
Reply
Report this post

Topix Politix App
One way or another

United States

#131430 May 26, 2013
If the dams are not deconstructed and the gas industry denied their methane, our world is doomed to a drought that never ends, in those areas.

“Understand people,”

Level 3

Since: Mar 08

you must, understand people.

#131431 May 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
LOL.
Cute. Seems like you want to prove your intelligence instead.
But did you see my points with variable vs. static, or do you rather prefer mental masturbation, Lowell?

I'm looking for an educated rebuttal. C'mon, I know you are capable.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 27 min Thinking 18,520
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 32 min The Northener 204,857
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Thinking 43,194
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Chimney1 151,481
Sun could not have formed as thought 16 hr U think Im wrong 19
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) Wed It aint necessari... 912
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws Aug 22 Bren 1
More from around the web