Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179619 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

#150591 Sep 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there is no requirement that we fill all of the gaps.
Where did you get that crazy idea from?
What we do have to do is to show you that all fossils found find fit the evolutionary fossil paradigm. If a fossil is found seriously out of order that is a major problem for evolution.
Do you understand the concept of scientific evidence?
I'm not asking for much. Of all the myriad different kinds of animals and plants out there, you'd think you could at least show one complete series. This would have had to have happened millions of times over millions of years. Yet...nothing.
Believer

Manchester, TN

#150592 Sep 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim discernment, so lets see how well it works. Tell us of your discerning thoughts on the following.
Seeing back in time
Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
Science claims we are seeing back into time, some 13 billion light years ago. Science claims that we can see that far back in time, because the light from those distant worlds and galaxies have been traveling here for those billions of years and that by such, we are looking back in time. That simply cannot be, according to science.
Simple light cannot carry images of those far off worlds and galaxies to our telescopes, meaning, our telescopes see out to those galaxies, disproving relativity, gravitational lensing and light theory.
That's why I said, light cannot carry images of those worlds and galaxies, meaning, if their light speed and theory were true, we could see the light, but not the worlds or galaxies, because images cannot be carried on light, but science proves how much light breaks down in its retro reflector test from the earth to the moon and back. Science itself declares that the further away light gets from its source, the more it breaks down.
Science is treating us like morons!!!!
Discernment is not knowing or presuming scientific speculation or evidence.

I'm talking about spiritual discernment. If you don't know the difference, think of spiritual wisdom versus science.

I've listened to Hugh Ross on the subject. He makes a compelling argument for seeing back in time. I don't worry about who is write or wrong about such things. I know God has the answers and I don't need those answers to know God.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150593 Sep 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
And you have not fullfulled the second part of the deal: To show me where Sanford claims that once fitness is lost, it can never be regained; regardless of how it was lost by experiment, breeding, natural, whatever, and then under no such circumstances can it EVER be regained? What baloney. You need that to refute him but let me tell you, you are just spinning a tall tale which is false in the first place. Fitness is only indirectly related to a declining genome could fluctuate up and down for centuries before the ultimate genetic meltdown occurs. And what's this about peer review? Do you have any evidence of that? No. That is just more of your lies.
You are so full of Bravo Sierra that I can't believe it!
Sanford said loss of fitness could be masked by improvement in nutrition and medicine temporarily. But that does not apply in the experiment and you know it. So absent these factors tell me (and Sanford for that matter) how fitness can increase generation by generation when the underlying genome continues to decline. And if it can, then the whole notion that the genome is deteriorating rather than just changing is questionable.

Looks to me more like you are trying to wriggle out of the only falsification test that Sanford's work can be held to. Not surprising since it so obviously failed that test.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#150594 Sep 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Design has nothing to do with religion. It either was or it wasn't. Specified information and specified complexity come from intelligence. If it is either than it necessarily follows that its cause was intelligent. Religion is not part of the discussion at all.
So when you argue for ID and a Creator, you are in fact disregarding the biblical mythology and the Abrahamic god.
How do you flesh out >your personal< hypothesis, then? Ancient aliens? Extradimensional overmind? Genesis torpedo?
Believer

Manchester, TN

#150595 Sep 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there is no requirement that we fill all of the gaps.
Where did you get that crazy idea from?
What we do have to do is to show you that all fossils found find fit the evolutionary fossil paradigm. If a fossil is found seriously out of order that is a major problem for evolution.
Do you understand the concept of scientific evidence?
We understand it just fine. Our knowledge of reality doesn't stop there, however.
You should see what you are missing! I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm very sincere!
Now, hit me with your best shot. We've heard it before...over and over, and over!
HTS

Williston, ND

#150596 Sep 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it assumes evolution and would be true anywhere with anything. And also because Tiktaalik is just a fish, mosaic perhaps, but is not considered transitional. The fins are not even connected to the main skeleton so could not possibly support its own weight or walk on land. All the claims about Tiktaalik are smokescreens and exaggerations. You still got nothing.
The evo-morons never learn from their failures.
They blew it with the coelacanth.
Now they're repeating the same mistake with tiktaalik.
If that is their poster child for evolution, that's pretty pathetic.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150597 Sep 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not asking for much. Of all the myriad different kinds of animals and plants out there, you'd think you could at least show one complete series. This would have had to have happened millions of times over millions of years. Yet...nothing.
We have some very well filled out series. There is the evolution of the horse, the manatee, and of course man.

Plus there are several lines of sea animals that are extremely well filled out.

And you are asking for too much. Land based fossils are an extreme fluke. We have far fewer land based fossils than sea based fossils. And this is only one more point of evidence against the Flud. If there was a Flud you would expect more land based fossils than sea based since There is far more land than SHALLOW seas. Most of the sedimentary rock that we find is from shallow seas, not deep seas. So we should have had far more land based fossils than sea based fossils if all of the sedimentary rocks came in that one Flud.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150598 Sep 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Design has nothing to do with religion. It either was or it wasn't. Specified information and specified complexity come from intelligence. If it is either than it necessarily follows that its cause was intelligent. Religion is not part of the discussion at all.
The term "specified" is already a value judgement and its concocted by those who think they already know the answer. "Specific" complexity you might get away with. As in, the ferrous group inside the hemoglobin must have a very specific structure to work. But "specified" is not a fact, its a claim.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150599 Sep 8, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
We understand it just fine. Our knowledge of reality doesn't stop there, however.
You should see what you are missing! I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm very sincere!
Now, hit me with your best shot. We've heard it before...over and over, and over!
Then you do know that there is no scientific evidence that supports creationism, right?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#150600 Sep 8, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Discernment is not knowing or presuming scientific speculation or evidence.
I'm talking about spiritual discernment. If you don't know the difference, think of spiritual wisdom versus science.
I've listened to Hugh Ross on the subject. He makes a compelling argument for seeing back in time. I don't worry about who is write or wrong about such things. I know God has the answers and I don't need those answers to know God.
Your "discernment" is rooted in the spiritual wisdom of Heb. 11:1. If the desired preconceptions are illogical, undetectable and have no sound or sane basis for believability, faith alone serves as ample evidence that the delusions are real.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150601 Sep 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not asking for much. Of all the myriad different kinds of animals and plants out there, you'd think you could at least show one complete series. This would have had to have happened millions of times over millions of years. Yet...nothing.
You mean complete with every change for half a billion years? Well you can try radiolarians. Or you can get real. The whole fossil record is consistent with evolution.

We are still waiting for your Cambrian rabbit. Or to put it in Adam and Eve terms, why there are NO mammals in the first 3/5 of the post Eden period, nor birds, nor flowering plants or grasses. Not even pollen fossils of these last ones.

Really too funny that you can take YEC seriously.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#150602 Sep 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not "admit" not reading Behe's books. I stated very clearly that knowing his argument was based on IC and already seeing why IC fails even in principle, there was no point.
Oh, really? So you didn't write this:

"I have not read Behe's book because even the premise is so misguided that it does not really matter how many examples of ID he thinks he has found, he can prove none of them. Even in principle. So do I really need to labour through his book? Nope, this would be a waste of time."

Come on Chimney, fess up.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150603 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The evo-morons never learn from their failures.
They blew it with the coelacanth.
Now they're repeating the same mistake with tiktaalik.
If that is their poster child for evolution, that's pretty pathetic.
Do show us where evolution requires that the order of Coelacanths has to become extinct at any particular point in time.

A rabbit in the Cambrian would blow it for evolution. A t-rex in the Congo today would not. You dont know the difference between these two examples because you dont understand how evolution works or what it predicts. Obviously.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#150604 Sep 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Design has nothing to do with religion. It either was or it wasn't. Specified information and specified complexity come from intelligence. If it is either than it necessarily follows that its cause was intelligent. Religion is not part of the discussion at all.
Why do we have such a very hard time, imagining your sincerity of this statement. Being such a staunch advocate and believer of the biblical flood tale? Of course you would never be guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#150605 Sep 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
You mean complete with every change for half a billion years? Well you can try radiolarians. Or you can get real. The whole fossil record is consistent with evolution.
The whole fossil record is one big gap.
Chimney1 wrote:
We are still waiting for your Cambrian rabbit. Or to put it in Adam and Eve terms, why there are NO mammals in the first 3/5 of the post Eden period, nor birds, nor flowering plants or grasses. Not even pollen fossils of these last ones.
Really too funny that you can take YEC seriously.
Because your "periods" are based on your "theory". It's really funny how you take evolution seriously.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150606 Sep 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, really? So you didn't write this:
"I have not read Behe's book because even the premise is so misguided that it does not really matter how many examples of ID he thinks he has found, he can prove none of them. Even in principle. So do I really need to labour through his book? Nope, this would be a waste of time."
Come on Chimney, fess up.
Idiot. In both statements I point out that I did not read his books. The issue was with you using the value laden term "admitted". It was not an admission. It was a plain statement that I have not and why I have not.

You can whine all you like but I notice that you havr never been able to refute the reason I gave- that irreducuble complexity is unprovable even in principle. Its merely an argument from ignorance.

To call a plain statement offered voluntarily and without guilt an "admission" is to twist a fact and the value of that fact. Its about as low as you can get because its the most subtle form of lying.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#150607 Sep 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do we have such a very hard time, imagining your sincerity of this statement. Being such a staunch advocate and believer of the biblical flood tale? Of course you would never be guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
Because you're an incompetent doofus?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150608 Sep 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole fossil record is one big gap.
<quoted text>
Because your "periods" are based on your "theory". It's really funny how you take evolution seriously.
Ok those creatures and pollens are absent from 3/5 of the same geologic column that does contain species that evolution says are antecedent.

Even better, regardless of the true age of the column, the millions of fossils found show the progression predicted by evolution and violate the order predicted by YEC.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#150609 Sep 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do show us where evolution requires that the order of Coelacanths has to become extinct at any particular point in time.
A rabbit in the Cambrian would blow it for evolution. A t-rex in the Congo today would not. You dont know the difference between these two examples because you dont understand how evolution works or what it predicts. Obviously.
What would a rabbit be doing living with trilobites? That is such a stupid argument.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150610 Sep 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What would a rabbit be doing living with trilobites? That is such a stupid argument.
So now you think feigning stupidity is an effective dodge?

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) 43 min Blitzking 197,481
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 47 min ChristineM 13,306
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 54 min ChristineM 150,999
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Chimney1 31,312
Rome Viharo debunks evolution 15 hr Support of Rome V... 1
Evolution in action Fri MIDutch 1
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... May 25 bearings 2
More from around the web