Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178696 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: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150561 Sep 7, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Just want to know how they are lying for Jesus in your opinion as you claim.
It does sound a bit sour grapish, this "lying for Jesus" accusation.

Until you look at the substance of the arguments they are presenting.

Behe lied with his "irreducible complexity" claims to the degree that a conservative Christian Judge hauled him over the coals for it. On one hand you have a grandstanding showman selling a lot of books, and on the other you have a whole bunch of scientists anonymously doing REAL research on the immune system so that we can tackle issues like AIDS and lupus. So Behe misrepresents their decades of work...and he is a liar.

Sanford misrepresented real scientists' works, again, decades of actual study and work, to concoct his genetic entropy theory. Failed peer review completely, but a great success with young earth creationists who WANT to believe it.

Snelling misrepresented the hard work of Coe and Prevot concerning paleomagnetism, trying to stupidly show that their work on magnetic reversals could be made to fit a YEC model. Even after they pointed out his errors politely, he continued. Parasitically claiming respectability for his BS by lying about the work of real scientists.

Berlinski misrepresented the great mathematician John Von Neumann, ignoring the fact that JVN had explicitly explained that above a certain level of complexity, the auto-reproducing automaton could generate increasing complexity indefinitely.

Shubin spent five years scratching around inhospitable regions in northern Canada and Greenland based on the predictions of evolution, in his search for a transitional water/land creature and found tiktaalik. Only to have armchair "creationists" as usual doing their best to debunk it. And not scientifically. Just the usual trash.

On and on it goes. Lying or simply misunderstanding the Second Law, information theory, punctuated equilibrium, randomness versus selection, pretending there is "no geologic column", a never ending tirade of either stupid or deliberate misapplication.

All the way back to Darwin, real scientists are quote mined and lied about in order to further an anti-evolution agenda. As you can see, those who read up on these idiotic claims without bothering to get the balance of understanding the real science go on endlessly. Lying for the liars for Jesus.
One way or another

United States

#150562 Sep 7, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
JustIn aka Believer.
Are you sure that's not Justin Bieber?

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#150563 Sep 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not paranoid that way. If a post of mine disappears it is not my loss.
Even if you can't find my post I gave you a clue to HST's lie.
Again, I don't feel like going back to find a post that you probably missed.
WTF does paranoid have to do with a post not posting? And yes it is your loss if it did not post for them there is no evidence of you saying why you say he lies for Jesus. Therefore I can say you lied about giving reason when you did not.
So like I said I will call you out every time you say someone lies for Jesus. It is not my problem that you have no reason to say that or are a coward and won't say why you say that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150564 Sep 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
ID Dawkins can conclude through science that something WASN'T intelligently designed, then it can also be concluded through science that something WAS intelligently designed.
You can't have it both ways.
Yes, in science, some arguments are not symmetrical. We understand why evolution's demand for gradual, step by step change that does not allow much regression from fitness at any step could SOMETIMES lead to sub-optimal design.

When we see "Good design" is equally an argument for both evolution or ID.

But "bad design" is pretty hard to explain in terms of a Designer, especially when its so obvious in most cases that the limitations are caused by the constraints of evolutionary ancestry. You can always argue that the Designer meant to do it, even meant to fool us, but that is a stretch because we all know that you attribute certain moral super qualities to your supposedly anonymous "Designer".

So in a way, its more of a reveal that your "ID" and "Designer" are a carefully couched attempts to sound secular while forwarding your purely religious arguments.

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#150565 Sep 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It does sound a bit sour grapish, this "lying for Jesus" accusation.
Until you look at the substance of the arguments they are presenting.
Behe lied with his "irreducible complexity" claims to the degree that a conservative Christian Judge hauled him over the coals for it. On one hand you have a grandstanding showman selling a lot of books, and on the other you have a whole bunch of scientists anonymously doing REAL research on the immune system so that we can tackle issues like AIDS and lupus. So Behe misrepresents their decades of work...and he is a liar.
Sanford misrepresented real scientists' works, again, decades of actual study and work, to concoct his genetic entropy theory. Failed peer review completely, but a great success with young earth creationists who WANT to believe it.
Snelling misrepresented the hard work of Coe and Prevot concerning paleomagnetism, trying to stupidly show that their work on magnetic reversals could be made to fit a YEC model. Even after they pointed out his errors politely, he continued. Parasitically claiming respectability for his BS by lying about the work of real scientists.
Berlinski misrepresented the great mathematician John Von Neumann, ignoring the fact that JVN had explicitly explained that above a certain level of complexity, the auto-reproducing automaton could generate increasing complexity indefinitely.
Shubin spent five years scratching around inhospitable regions in northern Canada and Greenland based on the predictions of evolution, in his search for a transitional water/land creature and found tiktaalik. Only to have armchair "creationists" as usual doing their best to debunk it. And not scientifically. Just the usual trash.
On and on it goes. Lying or simply misunderstanding the Second Law, information theory, punctuated equilibrium, randomness versus selection, pretending there is "no geologic column", a never ending tirade of either stupid or deliberate misapplication.
All the way back to Darwin, real scientists are quote mined and lied about in order to further an anti-evolution agenda. As you can see, those who read up on these idiotic claims without bothering to get the balance of understanding the real science go on endlessly. Lying for the liars for Jesus.
But it is not Jesus that supposedly created life or the universe, That would be God. So saying lying for Jesus is just stupid.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150566 Sep 8, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
But it is not Jesus that supposedly created life or the universe, That would be God. So saying lying for Jesus is just stupid.
Ask any fundamentalist and they will say that Jesus IS God. Don't ask me to justify that logically, I will leave explaining plain nonsense to them with their father son holy spirit 3-in-one all purpose "mystery".

The more divine they made Jesus, the more it violated the tenet of monotheism. They had to justify it somehow I suppose.

In any case its the lying that is the issue, not the name of the deity they think they are defending.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#150567 Sep 8, 2013
Justin wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not ignorant of the things I keep telling you that you do not have the ability to understand.
I'm not educated in science, but I can learn if I want to.
And there it is. You can learn if you want to, but you don't want to. If you did want to, you wouldn't be telling us certain biological phenomena are impossible when you're too ignorant to know that. Instead, you would be busying yourself learning rather than telling the world how biology works based on your own self-professed ignorance.

Notice that I don't tell you how "spiritual" things work. Hell, I've been asking for a workable definition of "spiritual" for quite a while. You've yet to provide one that is anything more than poetic meanderings from the Bible.

Of the two of us, which is the more honest in his approach? The one who admits he doesn't understand the subject and only asks for more information, or the one who admits he doesn't understand the subject and then tries to be an authority on the subject?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#150568 Sep 8, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Darn it, LG! I wish you would learn to use Wikipedia. I'm tired of you asking for my help in defining terms you don't seem to understand!
Coward.

What I mentioned are the answers to your questions, and the definition of your failure. But, as you've declared your ignorance yet insist upon telling us all about how that subject simply must be a certain thing despite that admitted ignorance, your pride in your ignorance is clouding your judgement, and you're guilty of haughtiness. Doesn't your God kind of dislike haughtiness?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#150569 Sep 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Science did not predict tiktaalik. It would make a broad prediction before leaving on any hunt, unless they had inside information, like a kid that grew up in that area and had seen these creatures, so he told someone and the the prediction was made.
Yeah, Neil Shubin kind of DID predict tiktaalik. He predicted, before ever setting foot on the cliffs, that a certain type of fossil should be present in a certain stratum in a certain region. Lo and behold, what happened? He found that certain type of fossil in that certain stratum in that certain region. When you say in advance where a particular thing will be, and then you it where you said it would be, how is that not a prediction?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#150570 Sep 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Evoisim keeps saying it makes predictions. I'll show how its done after the fact, everytime.
This quote is taken from a speech Nikita Khrushchev made before the U.N. in the early years of the Cold War. "America will fall without a shot being fired. It will fall from within."
I reply,---do you think Nikita had a crystal ball or was he clairvoyant?
Why would he say something like that, if he wasn't clairvoyant?
Was he subject to inside information and if so, who gave him that info and why?
Why in the world would he make such a prediction in the first place, in front of the whole world and the world not laugh him into oblivion, as a so called world leader?
Did all the other leaders know what he knew?
If a vague enough statement is made, it can mean anything to anybody at any time. But, "we should find a very specific type of fossil that has never been discovered before in a very specific stratum in a very specific region" is a useful prediction that, HOLY SHEEEEEIT, produced actual positive results.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#150571 Sep 8, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Your standards and YOUR inability to understand what is really important in life, I am ignorant.
Is it important to you to know what you're talking about before shooting your big mouth off?
Believer wrote:
According to the standards of a civil society where we learn as children how to try to use common courtesy and respect in dealing with others, and having the ability to spiritually discern truth from bullcrap, you are the all time best definition of ignorance.
Excuse my language.:o)
Define "spiritual."

Notice that I ask for information about things I don't understand. When YOU don't understand something, you claim it's impossible...especially if it in any way runs counter to your preconceived notions which have been passed down from mom and dad. After all, mom and dad weren't liars, therefore the things they taught you couldn't possibly be wrong, right? Yeah...don't for a second think that we haven't seen and dissected many just like you already. You're just another in a long line. The same psychological phenomena result in the same behaviors. You're not special. You're just another person, with a generic brain that behaves predictably in a given environment with given stimuli. That's not your fault. However, what you do with that IS your fault. You can keep telling us how biology must work despite your admitted ignorance, or you can learn how it works and stop being a colossal asshat. I mean, it's your choice. I can't force you to stop being an asshat.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#150572 Sep 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
ID Dawkins can conclude through science that something WASN'T intelligently designed, then it can also be concluded through science that something WAS intelligently designed.
You can't have it both ways.
So, if you find thing X that appears well designed by your standards, it demonstrates intelligent design. When we find thing Y that appears poorly designed by our standards, it does not in any way contradict intelligent design.
If a hypothesis is contradicted by any evidence, that hypothesis is incorrect.
Not that you have a hypothesis. It's a glorified argument from ignorance. It says, "because we can't think of any other way that X could form so nicely, it must have been designed by an intelligent agent." Because we can't explain X, Z must be the explanation. That is the very definition of the argument from ignorance, which is exactly what intelligent design is.
Oh, and recall that ID is, according to one of its biggest proponents, exactly as scientific as astrology.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#150573 Sep 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Behe lied with his "irreducible complexity" claims to the degree that a conservative Christian Judge hauled him over the coals for it. On one hand you have a grandstanding showman selling a lot of books, and on the other you have a whole bunch of scientists anonymously doing REAL research on the immune system so that we can tackle issues like AIDS and lupus. So Behe misrepresents their decades of work...and he is a liar.
You admitted that you never read any Behe and the court has nothing to do with his research. And what if the judge was conservative and Christian as you claim? Does that make him an expert in molecular biology? Is Behe really your enemy? He still believes in evolution, old earth, and common descent you know. And it is very ignorant of you to not mention all the important scientific contributions he has made ranging in areas from sickle cell to ID. Rants like these just make it sound like you are paranoid that there might be a higher power after all. Your arguments are weak, transparent, and dishonest.
Chimney1 wrote:
Sanford misrepresented real scientists' works, again, decades of actual study and work, to concoct his genetic entropy theory. Failed peer review completely, but a great success with young earth creationists who WANT to believe it.
Oh now come on! Where does Sanford "misrepresent" anyone? OK, so you produced that bootleg copy of his book. I got to warn the illustrations are WAY off. And there are some pages missing. Guess you can't afford $2 for used paperback. 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!
One way or another

United States

#150574 Sep 8, 2013
As I said, someone saw it before and told him. Liars for science are a dime a dozen.
One way or another

United States

#150575 Sep 8, 2013
If anyone could predict the future without help, they would be playing the ponies, cards, dogs and every other form of gambling. Morons believe anything.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#150576 Sep 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, in science, some arguments are not symmetrical. We understand why evolution's demand for gradual, step by step change that does not allow much regression from fitness at any step could SOMETIMES lead to sub-optimal design.
When we see "Good design" is equally an argument for both evolution or ID.
But "bad design" is pretty hard to explain in terms of a Designer, especially when its so obvious in most cases that the limitations are caused by the constraints of evolutionary ancestry. You can always argue that the Designer meant to do it, even meant to fool us, but that is a stretch because we all know that you attribute certain moral super qualities to your supposedly anonymous "Designer".
So in a way, its more of a reveal that your "ID" and "Designer" are a carefully couched attempts to sound secular while forwarding your purely religious arguments.
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.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#150577 Sep 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it important to you to know what you're talking about before shooting your big mouth off?
<quoted text>
Define "spiritual."
Notice that I ask for information about things I don't understand. When YOU don't understand something, you claim it's impossible...especially if it in any way runs counter to your preconceived notions which have been passed down from mom and dad. After all, mom and dad weren't liars, therefore the things they taught you couldn't possibly be wrong, right? Yeah...don't for a second think that we haven't seen and dissected many just like you already. You're just another in a long line. The same psychological phenomena result in the same behaviors. You're not special. You're just another person, with a generic brain that behaves predictably in a given environment with given stimuli. That's not your fault. However, what you do with that IS your fault. You can keep telling us how biology must work despite your admitted ignorance, or you can learn how it works and stop being a colossal asshat. I mean, it's your choice. I can't force you to stop being an asshat.
You're a "One-Trick-Pony" LG, you've been doing the same thing for YEARS. Doesn't it get old? Mockingly asking stupid questions you already know what all the wrong answer are?
Believer

Manchester, TN

#150578 Sep 8, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
But it is not Jesus that supposedly created life or the universe, That would be God. So saying lying for Jesus is just stupid.
replaytime,
This is something many young and older Christians don't understand. I did not for years after becoming a Christian.

John Chapter 1, verses 1-18 explains that Jesus was very much involved in creation. These verses are referring to Jesus as the light of the world and John the Baptist whose mission it was to tell the people that Messiah had come.

I get the feeling you may be either a fairly young person or haven't been a Christian for very long. I've been a Christian for many years, but still have a lot to learn. And, of course, we weren't given all the answers because only God knows all things. He told us al we need to knw and what he doesn't, we believe through faith that God does not lie!( Proverbs 30:4 )

Two Christian ministers that I have found to be helpful in my search for the truth of the Bible are Charles Stanley and Jack VanImpe. If you listen to too many "preachers" you will get a lot of interpretations of scripture. These two men in my opinion are very different in their delivery, but stay true to the Christ of the Bible. And they teach the Truth iLife, but uncompromisingly.
I pray for you. God Bless You!

(Follow what these two men teach about the FIVE FUNDIMENTALS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.)
Your salvation is based on believing that Jesus is who He says He is! Everything else we understand and don't understand about the Bible does not determine our salvation. Remembering this will give you peace and you can learn from there without stressing over the other stuff. God will give you wisdom and discernment. All you have to do is ask!
Believer

Manchester, TN

#150579 Sep 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And there it is. You can learn if you want to, but you don't want to. If you did want to, you wouldn't be telling us certain biological phenomena are impossible when you're too ignorant to know that. Instead, you would be busying yourself learning rather than telling the world how biology works based on your own self-professed ignorance.
Notice that I don't tell you how "spiritual" things work. Hell, I've been asking for a workable definition of "spiritual" for quite a while. You've yet to provide one that is anything more than poetic meanderings from the Bible.
Of the two of us, which is the more honest in his approach? The one who admits he doesn't understand the subject and only asks for more information, or the one who admits he doesn't understand the subject and then tries to be an authority on the subject?
Ill find it for ya. I asked you a question about a week ago. You couldn't double talk your way out of it so you ignored it. I'll find it and give you one more chance to double talk your way out of it. If you even have courage enough to try, you won't be able to make any logical sense. It will just be more double talk.
Prove me wrong...please!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#150580 Sep 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask any fundamentalist and they will say that Jesus IS God. Don't ask me to justify that logically, I will leave explaining plain nonsense to them with their father son holy spirit 3-in-one all purpose "mystery".
The more divine they made Jesus, the more it violated the tenet of monotheism. They had to justify it somehow I suppose.
In any case its the lying that is the issue, not the name of the deity they think they are defending.
But you don't believe in God at all. So either way we are lying, right? Gotcha.

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 hr Blitzking 173,820
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr kenedy 143,935
News Intelligent design 21 hr FREE SERVANT 23
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Aug 30 Chilli J 13
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Aug 30 Chimney1 583
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Aug 30 Paul Porter1 421
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Aug 30 Paul Porter1 56
More from around the web