Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179707 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

#160792 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I wasn't even talking to you. I agreed with a comment Chimney made. You are the one that chimed in demanding I back up what I said. When I did and asked why you only seem to the think the space program counts as all science you turned into a pissy little bitch.
Your argument is. Yada, yada, yada. Space program. Yada, yada, yada.
All you really want to do is beat up on people that have a view different than your own. In that you are great neoconservative.
The reason I beat you up is because you make groundless, off the wall, bigoted and hateful statements all the time.(Including your last post!)
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160793 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, of course. I am everything you say, because you are the final arbiter of what everyone is. You really don't much care for rational argument do you. But you do seem hell bent on proving what I have said about you being a jerk. There just isn't anyway to discuss something with you where you don't become hostile and vitriolic. Almost every encounter I have seen with you and others involves you trying to belittle and bully them. Of course you will try to deny this by belittling and bullying me. Feel free. This is and internet forum and not the real world. You can be as big an asshole as you want.
What a load of crap....
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160794 Dec 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, UC does not qualify as a neocon. They have no particular social agenda but favour conservative supply side economics, and liberal democracy. UC is right out there on the theocratic loonytunes arm of the party that is killing its popularity among moderates.
How am I theocrat? I'm not even a member of any church. Just because I reject evolution? That's pure bigotry on YOUR part. You can't stand somebody that doesn't believe in your fairy tales.

And as for you Mr. Incognito, you won't tell us ANYTHING because you are so afraid of getting your head chopped off. LOL!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160795 Dec 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dawkins is lying? What particular examples can you cite?
As far as evolution (though not atheism) is concerned, Dawkins is promoting the views of 99% of his profession along with piles of evidence in support of it.
You can trash talk Dawkins all you like, because he is hostile to your viewpoint and openly says so. Fair enough. But ad hominem never wins arguments, so you might try backing your claims up. Dawkins says exactly why he dislikes your position.
WHo are the 1% of Evolutionist that don't believe in evolution? I'd like to read what they have to say!

:~D
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160796 Dec 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Dawkins is lying? What particular examples can you cite?
He regularly states evolution as a "fact" and regularly says that there is overwhelming proof that we evolved from a common ancestor. He lies when he says there are numerous examples of positive mutations of the kind that turn bacteria into humans, etc. He lies and exaggerates constantly. Just listen to him.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#160797 Dec 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if Mr. Young's explanation of why they doubt the Moon landing is accurate (lack of familiarity etc.), then that would be quite the opposite of why they would doubt evolution because they are certainly exposed to the theory of evolution often in school, media, etc.


Not really. Evolution is only taught at the most remedial level. Most people if asked to give 4 proofs of evolution could not do so. It is tragic our educational system does such a poor job teaching this critical area of science.

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, becoming an astronaut was the most exciting, most glamorous thing you could imagine doing. Young people were inspired and dreamed of space. Today, it is a distant memory. They now see America getting away from exploration and science. America has outsourced space to the Russians. It is not even a reasonable career goal anymore. Science, physics, math, aeronautics, space, etc., is something foreign to American kids now. Look at the university, those enrollments are filled with Chinese, Indian, etc., hardly any American kids are interested in those fields anymore.

I rarely agree with much you say, but I have to go all in on the above. It is truly sad that our culture has such a hostility toward science (or at best ambivalence).

I won't turn this into a fight. Nice comments.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160798 Dec 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. Evolution is only taught at the most remedial level. Most people if asked to give 4 proofs of evolution could not do so. It is tragic our educational system does such a poor job teaching this critical area of science.
<quoted text>
I rarely agree with much you say, but I have to go all in on the above. It is truly sad that our culture has such a hostility toward science (or at best ambivalence).
I won't turn this into a fight. Nice comments.
Well I guess everybody has a different experience with grade school. But I remember very clearly, my 7th grade science teacher banging his fists together preaching Darwinism to us for example that fossils form very slowly over millions of years, etc. Of course we know that is not true now. I was young and didn't know any better until much later.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160799 Dec 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, UC does not qualify as a neocon. They have no particular social agenda but favour conservative supply side economics, and liberal democracy. UC is right out there on the theocratic loonytunes arm of the party that is killing its popularity among moderates.
How do I stand on the issues Chimney. You seem to know all about me. Go ahead:
Mugwump

Glasgow, UK

#160800 Dec 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Climate change is pure non-science propaganda. That goes on the positive side of the ledger!
Ehhhh, didn't you on e claim that AGW is nonsense because volcanos produce a million x more CO2 than mankind.

then when I and (I think) Dogen pointed you to two seperate papers showing the exact opposite to be true you ignored it ....

Doesn't sound like someone who supports science to me.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160801 Dec 31, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Ehhhh, didn't you on e claim that AGW is nonsense because volcanos produce a million x more CO2 than mankind.
then when I and (I think) Dogen pointed you to two seperate papers showing the exact opposite to be true you ignored it ....
Doesn't sound like someone who supports science to me.
Not even close. I'm not going to argue with you because all you do is lie about it.

You are not interested in discussing CO2 or it's possible impact on the environment or climate; no, all you are interested in is setting up false strawmen to attack me with. Isn't that right?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160802 Dec 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason I beat you up is because you make groundless, off the wall, bigoted and hateful statements all the time.(Including your last post!)
The reason you beat up on me is that you are vicious, hateful little man that beats up on others to feel better about yourself. Look at your posts. Anybody that disagrees with you is attacked. You go into ad hominem rants that have no basis in fact and nothing to do with the discussion.

Pointing out George W. Bushes hostile approach to science is not groundless and certainly not off the wall. How you can roll bigoted and hateful into that is baffling, though I suspect it is projection. Bush and his administration has mislead the public on climate change and defunded research on climate change. Bush openly supported mixing religion and science in science education. The Union of Concerned Scientist (not my favorite group), issued a report in 2004 stating:

"A growing number of scientists, policy makers, and technical specialists both inside and outside the government allege that the current Bush administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy. In addition, these experts contend that irregularities in the appointment of scientific advisors and advisory panels are threatening to upset the legally mandated balance of these bodies."

Surveys by the UCC and the Dept. of Health and Human Services conducted on FDA researchers showed that more than 20% of the respondents had been asked to withhold or falsify portions of their research for non-science reasons under the Bush administration.

The Bush administration forced the NCI to modify a fact sheet about breast cancer to state that abortions were a cause despite the fact that science says otherwise.

So your boy Bush was a real champion of science.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160803 Dec 31, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Ehhhh, didn't you on e claim that AGW is nonsense because volcanos produce a million x more CO2 than mankind.
then when I and (I think) Dogen pointed you to two seperate papers showing the exact opposite to be true you ignored it ....
Doesn't sound like someone who supports science to me.
Yes, I remember that was one of his claims.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160804 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The reason you beat up on me is that you are vicious, hateful little man that beats up on others to feel better about yourself. Look at your posts. Anybody that disagrees with you is attacked. You go into ad hominem rants that have no basis in fact and nothing to do with the discussion.
YOU attacked me first thing this morning! Every day! You just did it again.

That was total projection.

All you're interested in is getting a rise out of someone else's anger. You're pathetic!

A GW being against the retarded false Climate Change agenda is Pro-science if anything.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160805 Dec 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, UC does not qualify as a neocon. They have no particular social agenda but favour conservative supply side economics, and liberal democracy. UC is right out there on the theocratic loonytunes arm of the party that is killing its popularity among moderates.
I hope are correct in that definition of neoconservative. I have seen the term used to describe the theocratic looney tune, hysterical, historical revisionist that have destroyed the Republican party. However you name him, the latter definition fits Urb from what I have seen.

I find it difficult to take someone seriously when they claim to study and love science while eschewing it vigorously in favor of ideology. That fits Urb too.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160806 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I remember that was one of his claims.
That is NOT my claim. Not even close.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160807 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I have read those conservative books. They are written at the "See Spot run" level and they all pretty much say the same thing. Oddly, your posts read much like them. Angry, low brow and close-minded.
There is nothing wrong with being conservative, but what passes for conservative in the US today isn't. Where are the 21st Century Eisnenhowers and Goldwaters? Replaced by religious zealots, fear mongers, historical revisionists and talking heads.
It is no surprise that red states tend to have lower IQ's and demand the largest servings of the government cheese.
This was your first post to me today. Anyone who writes such angry, dishonest, hostile, bigoted remarks like that DESERVES to get BEAT UP!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160808 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I hope are correct in that definition of neoconservative. I have seen the term used to describe the theocratic looney tune, hysterical, historical revisionist that have destroyed the Republican party. However you name him, the latter definition fits Urb from what I have seen.
I find it difficult to take someone seriously when they claim to study and love science while eschewing it vigorously in favor of ideology. That fits Urb too.
Yes I do love science with a passion. That is true. But I happen to have a slightly different interpretation than you. But that should not cause you emotion or anger or hatred. Because when it does, that means my interpretation offends you which is bigotry and prejudice. My difference in opinion should not be having an emotional response on you the way it does. The reason this is happening is because evolution is not your science, it is your ideology. Think about it.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160809 Dec 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
This was your first post to me today. Anyone who writes such angry, dishonest, hostile, bigoted remarks like that DESERVES to get BEAT UP!
Of course. You need to blame the victim and thus justify your own behavior. You aren't in control or at fault. I am. So I deserve your violence. Gotcha.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#160810 Dec 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I hope are correct in that definition of neoconservative. I have seen the term used to describe the theocratic looney tune, hysterical, historical revisionist that have destroyed the Republican party. However you name him, the latter definition fits Urb from what I have seen.
I find it difficult to take someone seriously when they claim to study and love science while eschewing it vigorously in favor of ideology. That fits Urb too.
I'm not a theocrat as Chimney claimed, OK? I'm not even a member of any church. I believe in freedom to believe whatever you want. Why do you attack me like this all the time? Why do you care what I believe?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#160811 Dec 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do love science with a passion. That is true. But I happen to have a slightly different interpretation than you. But that should not cause you emotion or anger or hatred. Because when it does, that means my interpretation offends you which is bigotry and prejudice. My difference in opinion should not be having an emotional response on you the way it does. The reason this is happening is because evolution is not your science, it is your ideology. Think about it.
Yes, that is right. Put words into the posts of others that are not there. "Difficult to take seriously" obviously means hatred, anger, bigotry, prejudice and an out of control emotional response. Your analytical ability is staggering.

Evolution happened, it is science and your ideology hasn't and won't change that no matter how much you try to strong arm your opponents.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 min marksman11 154,681
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min Regolith Based Li... 216,680
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min One way or another 48,495
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr scientia potentia... 23,492
Science News (Sep '13) 11 hr positronium 3,982
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 17 hr The Northener 642
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 17 hr porkncheese 8
More from around the web