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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163729 Feb 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
In the absence of macro-continuum confirmation, Design remains the best explanation.
Not the slightest confirmation of design. You lose.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163730 Feb 1, 2014
___Jenny___ wrote:
"Should evolution be taught in high school?"
Evolution should be the only thing taught as a class. Religious beliefs should be kept for in church or at home. And where religious isms are concerned there are hundreds of different religions with different doctrines about which God created man and how he or she (depending upon what religion from history) created them. Do we teach your religion or the different religion of the guy on the other side of town?
Public schools are not chuches. Keep it that way. If you want your children taught religious isms teach your kids those things yourself or send them to a religious school. But I don't want my future children taught your stuff.
Well said, Jenny.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163731 Feb 1, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
/AND did you notice they were talking about millions of years instead of thousands? Seems like they have decided that it is not a young earth after all.
It's difficult to keep track of lies, huh?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#163732 Feb 1, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
By means of Natural selection. That means no intelligence is involved. They still believe that nature came into existence by itself. This excludes God. All creation was entirely accidental, which would be necessary if there were no God. Furthermore, the scientific establishment sees nature as accidentalism, meaning pure atheistic evolution.
Secular science must assume there is no God so it is their goal to find the most plausible, purposeless material mechanism to scientifically justify their philosophy of atheism. In other words, the ToE is a missionary tool to get convince students with extremely sophisticated tricky definitions and other deception to convert them to atheism.
The starting point for atheists and evolutionists, they are not searching for the truth for they already start with the position that there is not God. Then, with that position firmly cemented into their philosophy, they begin to look for the best evidence to justify their initial starting position.
There is no such evidence, therefore, they must use deception to get converts.
You say it excludes God and I say it doesn't.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163733 Feb 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you want your future children taught your stuff, albeit in chruch? If so, why? What do you want them taught?
Damn, you're so stupid some times. Jenny didn't say she wanted science taught in church. She said she didn't want religion taught in public school. Are you that clueless or just ready to argue against anything at all?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163734 Feb 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
A pre-cambrian rabbit would not fit the pattern of design evolution.
Why not? Are you saying your designer was incapable of poofing something new into existence any time he wanted to? Sounds like a pretty limited guy.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#163735 Feb 1, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
So since evolution claims birds evolved from dinosaurs, we could falsify evolution if there are any birds found that predate their so-called ancestor, correct?
In this case modern birds are thought to have evolved from maniraptoran theropods.
The evidence is all in favor of this view and recent discovery show this is the case.
However it is possible a bird like creature could have existed before any yet discovered.

This has not been done and even if it had it doesn't prove modern birds descended from it.
I know where you are going with this, and as yet there is no evidence that conflicts with this view. It takes considerable more than a trace fossil to prove the existence of a creature.
But in all if a bird was found to predate dinosaurs, it would only falsify the dino to bird theory and not totally falsify evolution.

Indeed it is possible we could find such a creature existed and evolved back and forth, as clearly this is the case with whales who evolved out the sea...to roam the land and then back into the sea leaving land behind.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163736 Feb 1, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How about intelligent design? Do you accept any evidence for that?
If there were convincing evidence, I would. Got any?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163737 Feb 1, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because none of this was ever new information. The duplication does not explain where the information came from in the first place.
Red herring.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163738 Feb 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Most importantly design is real, even if it explains/predicts nothing. It's all around you. It's the only explanation which fits the existing data of discontinuous macro-evolution of complex things.
Saying so is not the same as demonstrating how it could be so.

Google "scientific method"

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163739 Feb 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Design has mechanisms and evidence.
Saying so is not the same as demonstrating how it could be so.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163740 Feb 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that design explains everything about life.
Saying so is not the same as demonstrating how it could be so.

Where's you data, doofus???

Remember this the next time you try to bullshit everyone how you always provide evidence. You do not.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163741 Feb 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What I stated and accept is that designs occur in an evolving sequence. A pre-cambrian rabbit doesn't fit the pattern of design. What would falsify evolution?
Asked and answered. Now you're just spamming.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163742 Feb 1, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of the joy of discovery, did you know they have now discovered dna of an unknown human ancestor in a finger bone?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/...
Yes, Denisovans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovans

Interesting stuff, eh?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163743 Feb 1, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want religion taught in public schools. Even more, I don't want religion practiced in public schools (e.g., Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc.). Religion should be taught about in public school just like other things which are a significant part of human society, part of culture I suppose. Most importantly, only data and how to process data (i.e., reason) should be taught. The students can draw their own conclusions from that. Therefore, the religion of evolution should not be taught, just the physical data and perhaps possible explanations as reasoning examples.
Only the galacticly stupid calls evolution a religion. Please direct me to the Church of Evolution in your neighborhood. Please explain how and where one can be ordained as a Minister of Evolution.

Commence posting more silly stuff. I know you will. You can't help yourself.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163744 Feb 1, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Allow me to make this very clear for you:
1. it is logically possible that evidence contradictory to the model does not exist
2. even given #1 it is logically possible that the theorised model of evolution did not occur with respect to fossils
3. because of the above, the model of evolution is not falsifiable and thus can not be accepted for natural science
It is a good explanation, just not a scientific one.
Wow! That is some of the worst logic ever.#2 does not even come close to following #1. It's just plain stupid.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#163745 Feb 1, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How's that? How can it possibly be satisfying to believe in a theory that has no supporting evidence? That is based on "Nothing plus Nobody equals Everything"? How can you enjoy not knowing why you are here or what your purpose is or where you are going? How could it possibly be satisfying believing you are simply the result of random accidents? How could you possibly enjoy rejecting your own creator? How could it be satisfying when appreciating all the beauty in the world and having nobody to thank? What an empty existence. To me it sounds like a hellish nightmare. And you think being an Evolutionist beats being a young earth Creationist? You must have no idea what you're missing out on.
Go ahead. Defend yourself. What is so enjoyable about being an Evolutionist? I would love to hear your answer.
I can see the appeal of there being Someone who cares about every living thing and Someone who is in charge of making sure that ultimate justice always happens. That's a nice wish. But if wishing was the actual basis of reality we could wish into existence a much nicer world than the one we currently inhabit.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163747 Feb 1, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
"This is an incredibly well-preserved sample, so it was a joy to work with data this nice. We don't know all the reasons why, but it is almost miraculous how well-preserved the DNA is."
Miraculous! LOL!
Could it be because it's from people from the recent past? Ya think?
No.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163748 Feb 1, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
You are confused, those that accept evolution don't have to reject god. many of faith find it perfectly acceptable to see evolution as gods work.
What they DO have to reject is a literal interpretation of the bible, 6k old earth etc.
Again most of faith have no issue with this.
It is only the minority of theists (YEC) that have the issue.
Hope that has cleared up your confusion.
And confused he is. Like Marky, he can only see things in terms of black and white. Odd that a supposedly smart guy would suffer from such limited thinking.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#163749 Feb 1, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
By means of Natural selection. That means no intelligence is involved. They still believe that nature came into existence by itself. This excludes God. All creation was entirely accidental, which would be necessary if there were no God. Furthermore, the scientific establishment sees nature as accidentalism, meaning pure atheistic evolution.
Secular science must assume there is no God so it is their goal to find the most plausible, purposeless material mechanism to scientifically justify their philosophy of atheism. In other words, the ToE is a missionary tool to get convince students with extremely sophisticated tricky definitions and other deception to convert them to atheism.
The starting point for atheists and evolutionists, they are not searching for the truth for they already start with the position that there is not God. Then, with that position firmly cemented into their philosophy, they begin to look for the best evidence to justify their initial starting position.
There is no such evidence, therefore, they must use deception to get converts.
You really hate the fact that there are people who disagree with you, don't you?

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
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 5 hr Regolith Based Li... 39
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 8 hr Science 136
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 8 hr Science 124
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 hr Science 83,138
What is the theory of natural selection and has... 12 hr Science 3
The worst enemies of Creationism are "religioni... 12 hr 15th Dalai Lama 25
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 16 hr Science 164,685
More from around the web