Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#145724 Aug 4, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>You are here and your mother and father were here and their mother and father and so on. IF you go back more than 35 doublings, you get too many people. Where are they al burried?
Wow.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#145725 Aug 4, 2013
Scientist tell us that it is not possible for close family members to produce all the people we have on earth today as those with Noah after the flood,but they want us to believe every family living today has incest in its lineage. What gives?
One way or another

United States

#145726 Aug 4, 2013
There can be no light without heat.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#145727 Aug 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.
Just sayin....

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#145728 Aug 4, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Scientist tell us that it is not possible for close family members to produce all the people we have on earth today as those with Noah after the flood,but they want us to believe every family living today has incest in its lineage. What gives?
Because everybody knows god created the earth either 6,000 years ago or 5 minutes ago. Either way there isn't enough time for all these people, so they all had babies with each other. Is that what you mean?
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#145729 Aug 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Because everybody knows god created the earth either 6,000 years ago or 5 minutes ago. Either way there isn't enough time for all these people, so they all had babies with each other. Is that what you mean?
Tell us how many people with no incest involved can you count in your family going back 35 doublings?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#145730 Aug 4, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Tell us how many people with no incest involved can you count in your family going back 35 doublings?


Just get to the point, I cannot say beyond 4 generations anything for certain.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#145731 Aug 4, 2013
Believer Doing Homework wrote:
There is plenty of historical evidence to prove much of what is written in the Bible. All you have to do to find much of it is to google "evidence of the Bible."
The Bible begins mythically and merges into a semi-historical account of the Israelites. It has a lot in common with the pre-Christian Greek "bibles", the Iliad and Odyssey attributed to Homer, but in reality an oral tradition of events occurring in the pre-Classical period.

In this book too, we see historical facts mixed with mythological events and heroes. Until 1880, the city of Troy was thought to be a part of that myth, not a real place. But it was discovered and thus the Iliad and Odyssey were put on a sound footing with real history. Not only that, but these books were the foundation of Greek morality and conduct, just as the Bible was for another culture.

WITHIN those Greek accounts, we see that Achilles was supposed to be the son of a human and the Goddess Thetis, a minor river goddess. Do you believe THAT part of it just because Troy turned out to be real? According to your standards, we should!

In fact the Bible follows the pattern of many ancient writings, created by humans where God or Gods were entwined with human and natural events. Its not unique or even unusual in that regard. Japanese, Chinese, and Indian (Hindu) histories follow a similar pattern, reflecting that early cultures filled their misty roots with a mixture of remembered fact and superstitious fiction. Did the Japanese Emperors really descend from Gods? Why not? Places referred to in Japanese accounts exist just the same as Jericho and Tyre.

As for the Bible, Genesis looks to be pretty much all myth, and the accounts become more historical the more recent they are. But clearly they never cross that line pioneered by Herodotus and perfected by Thucydides (Greeks), who championed a rational skeptical approach to history for the first time, abandoning reliance on myth and superstition fully.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#145732 Aug 4, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Tell us how many people with no incest involved can you count in your family going back 35 doublings?
How do you define incest?

Yes, the same ancestors can appear numerous times in your heritage. That does not mean they were closely related to the person they were with at the time.

Some people count incest only in the immediate family. In other word you can marry your cousin. It seems most quit counting at your first cousin. I don't even know any of my second cousins so I suppose it could have been possible. Even so the population of people has always be on the order of at least 1,000. Even when you go back to when we weren't people. It would always be possible to avoid close relatives with a large enough population.

Believers of the two major Genesis myths don't believe that dangerously close and intense incest didn't happen just once. They believe it happened twice in the history of humanity.

Thankfully the genetic data says that that never happened.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#145733 Aug 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We have been over this before in great detail but if you're really interested I could give you an overview. First of all, your argument is based on the false assumption of naturalism and uniformitarianism. You are assuming that the light got here by natural means and travelled at a constant rate, over a constant distance, with time also being a constant. Now is there any logical reason why we should automatically know beforehand that these must be the case? The creation event was hardly a naturalistic event (You could say the same about BB.)
I could present the technical research that answers your questions but what would be the point? Just let it be known that we are quite comfortable with the solutions and have a very good working biblical creation cosmology. We no longer have a distant starlight/time problem.
Yes Urb, why not abandon "uniformitarianism and naturalism" and allow ourselves to make up any rules we want to fit with any old story, whether its Genesis or for that matter the Bhagavad Gita or Harry Potter? Whichever one we prefer to be true!

Yep, anything goes. lets multiply the speed of light arbitrarily, multiply radioactive decay by 700,000 times (and magic away the heat generated), lets move the continents as fast as jet boats and lets create magnetic reversals every day, and lets multiply sedimentation rates arbitrarily, and lets just stop the damned sun in the sky if we feel like it.

And yet, wherever scientists look, and they have looked hard, there is no observable violation of the laws of physics that work just as they do here and now. Spectrographic analysis shows that thousands and millions of years ago, radioactive decay rates worked the same as they do today, and other measurements show consistency in gravity, quantum physics, whatever.

In other words there is absolutely NO evidence that we should abandon the view that the laws worked in the past as they do now, certainly not to the magnitude required to validate your mythical cosmology.

Doesn't it strike even YOU as peculiar that the ONLY reason you question naturalism in science is because it utterly destroys your mythical preconceptions? Doesn't it strike you as weird that you will buy absolutely any amount of special pleading, exceptions, changes, just so you can keep denying the mountain of evidence stacked against you?

When WE counter one of your absurd YEC arguments, we have to do so within a consistent framework that adheres to the known laws of physics, based on everything that has been carefully observed over recent centuries. An explanation like density wave theory has to fit known facts about wave functions, gravitation, and all the known laws. That is WHY scientists spend years refining it until it does, and if it cannot work, look for an alternative.

But you think its on parity to just make up whatever shyte you can to distort reality so that it fits your myths, with no regard for what has actually been observed.

Might give you an inkling of why YEC is not regarded as anything but a retarded joke by real scientists.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#145734 Aug 4, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Truly staggering. I guess he never went to grade school. I think that is where I was first introduced to the spectrum. We got prism out and made rainbow colors with the sunlight and the teacher talked about the light at the red end of the spectrum being called infrared. She let us feel the heat on that end of the spectrum and told us that even though you couldn't see the light, the indicated it was still there.
I better not mention what she said about the light beyond the violet end of the spectrum. It will get under his skin.

And in his eyes.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#145735 Aug 4, 2013
One way or another wrote:
There can be no light without heat.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc if I understand you correctly.

Since you are nearly always wrong about nearly everything it is difficult to tell what you are on about.

If you can tell me what type of mushrooms you have been consuming it might help my analysis.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#145736 Aug 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you define incest?
Yes, the same ancestors can appear numerous times in your heritage. That does not mean they were closely related to the person they were with at the time.
Some people count incest only in the immediate family. In other word you can marry your cousin. It seems most quit counting at your first cousin. I don't even know any of my second cousins so I suppose it could have been possible. Even so the population of people has always be on the order of at least 1,000. Even when you go back to when we weren't people. It would always be possible to avoid close relatives with a large enough population.
Believers of the two major Genesis myths don't believe that dangerously close and intense incest didn't happen just once. They believe it happened twice in the history of humanity.
Thankfully the genetic data says that that never happened.
What if the first humans were giants who lived to be hundreds of years old?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#145737 Aug 4, 2013
Believer Doing Homework wrote:
<quoted text> I believe in Yahwah/Jehovah/Elohim.

There is no such thing as a "jehovah". It was made up by a Spanish monk in the 11th century and it probably one of the worst translation errors in history. The monks logic was 'there are things here I don't know how to translate so I will ignore them'.


Elohim is just a pronoun.

Yahwah (or the more common Yahweh) is the Hebrew name of God (Elohim).

Therefore, if you belief in "Yahwah/Jehovah/Elohim " then you are saying you believe in the Hebrew God, a word that actually means nothing, and a pronoun for the first.

You want to stick with your statement?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#145738 Aug 4, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>What if the first humans were giants who lived to be hundreds of years old?

What if the first humans were pig who breathed fire and flew?

If we are going to start making crap up lets go for the gold.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#145739 Aug 4, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
God overviewed his work for six days before he created man to have dominion over all the earth, then he rested on the seventh day. I believe God was seeing to it that what he had made was good, before he created man. I don't think the six days were a sequence of how life began, but they were the first days of creation and God viewed and looked at certain things to see to it that everything was good that had been created on the day the heavens and the earth were made.

Are you on drugs?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#145740 Aug 4, 2013
Believer Doing Homework wrote:
<quoted text>
Say what yo will, LG. You have made your "god" your own abilities and your quest to find EVIDENCE and soak in as much scientific knowledge as you possibly can in the short amount of time you will spend on this Earth.
As a believer, even if my beliefs should not turn out as I believe, I have looked at my life and the world and universe with an awesome appreciation and peace that can only be found in Faith (the substance of things hoed for/the evidence of things not seen).
You seem so frustrated with those of us who believe in a Creator. At times you seem almost desperate to project your scientific worldview on others. You seem hate, not only a creation worldview, but to hate those who have chosen that path for their lives.
My question to you is: why the disgust and disrespect for people with different opinions than you? Why do you feel such a seemingly burning desire to project your scientific worldview on others, who cannot take anything away from your quality of life, your ability to learn, or your passion for science.
Peace to you! Enjoy the world around you as you seek truth in science. Don't forget to "smell the roses." Life here is short, and full of adversity for all men.

I believe the proper response would be GFY

But that is up to LG.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#145741 Aug 4, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's your contention that God created all of the photons in a 20+ billion observable light year sphere simultaneously for the express purpose of confirming apologists' 6,000 year young universe idea. Sure, works for me (eye roll).

Why is he so wound up on the (long refuted) winding "problem"?

If he would read sources from this millennium he would know better.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#145742 Aug 4, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
So could you kindly explain to us how in just 6000 years those spiral arms not only formed but that the light from them was able to travel 10.7 billion light years to reach us.

Pretty funny. I enjoy urb's nonsense. To find something that was more nuts you would have to visit a Planters canning factory.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#145743 Aug 4, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Most Big Bang believers do not agree with the Genesis account of how it all began. We are told In the beginning God created heaven and the earth and everything was dark and the Spirit of God moved upon waters and God spake and said, Let there be light: and there was light. The Bible teaches that there is a firmament which divided or distributed the waters and Earth was gathered together unto one place from waters under the firmament which was called Heaven. Water was a great part of the formation of Earth in accordance with the Bible.

So you are saying that there is absolutely no evidence that the Genesis creation account is anything more than metaphor.

We already knew that.

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) 5 min Amused 32,608
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Regolith Based Li... 80,087
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr ChromiuMan 163,810
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr ChromiuMan 222,784
News Intelligent design (Jul '15) Sat Dogen 571
What's your religion? Sep 22 Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
More from around the web