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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#171102 Mar 18, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you're a mental suitcase, but you did just reference USA Today did you not?
And you just referenced the Flinstones did you not?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#171103 Mar 18, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, this brings back memories of that previous high priest of atheism, Carl Sagan, who I allowed to dupe me into believing that garbage back in the 1980s. I was a full-fledged atheist/Darwinist back them. I used to actually worship his books and TV series. Thank God I wised-up since then! Wow, I'm so embarrassed. How could have been that friggin' stupid?
Now we got Seth MacFarlane spewing his bimbo TV with this updated version of Cosmos? The "Family Guy" version of science. LOL! How appropriate!
You worshiped Carl Sagan??? That explains a lot.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#171104 Mar 18, 2014
And kinda relevant, regarding science's uniformitarian "assumptions":

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/03/how-c...
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#171105 Mar 18, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
And again, your landfill interpretation looks a lot more like you revising the meaning to something you find palatable compared to the obvious fervour and intent of Revelations. However, its novel so I will give it some thought.
The Bible was written thousands of years ago and one of the most difficult things to do is to understand the culture back then. There are numerous references to this topic and when understood in terms of the times, makes perfect sense. Expert theologians have delt with this subject more than any other. There are always going to be radical interpretations out there and we can't help it. But to be sure, Just dying and your dead body being tossed into a landfill pit *IS* of course much worse than being ressurected with a brand new body and being with your Maker and exerienced unimaginable joy and love for all eternity, don't you think?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#171106 Mar 18, 2014
The Dude wrote:
And kinda relevant, regarding science's uniformitarian "assumptions":
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/03/how-c...
An excellent explanation. Bookmarked. Thanks.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171107 Mar 18, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's not been 360 million years and evolution never happened.
So then you reject science.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171108 Mar 18, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible was written thousands of years ago and one of the most difficult things to do is to understand the culture back then. There are numerous references to this topic and when understood in terms of the times, makes perfect sense. Expert theologians have delt with this subject more than any other. There are always going to be radical interpretations out there and we can't help it. But to be sure, Just dying and your dead body being tossed into a landfill pit *IS* of course much worse than being ressurected with a brand new body and being with your Maker and exerienced unimaginable joy and love for all eternity, don't you think?
And you say you found this with science?

“The Bible is no science book”

Level 4

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#171109 Mar 18, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Cosmos episode would have been excellent, except for the fact that there were too many rude commercial breaks. There were several times when NDT was cut off in the middle of explaining an idea (well okay, they did let him finish his sentences), cut to commercial and then back to explaining the idea. NDT has always been great on PBS, but this show did not seem to have been produced with commercials in mind.
It was probably meant for NGC. Regular tv is nothing but commercials these days.

I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but I usually see him being himself and relaxed and funny.

Here is a video of him being himself and at the seven minute mark, he talks about the one percent different we are from chimps and how we would ever communicate with anything that is more that one percent different than we are.



http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Last one is funny
HTS

Englewood, CO

#171110 Mar 18, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You could start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy
Feel free to ignore the artistic reconstruction, the skeleton is photographed.
But do read the text - there are many differences in addition to cranial capacity in the fossil.
And before you bark back that its just a freak or an outlier, please remember that there are 40+ examples of erectus / ergaster and no modern humans in the same geological time period.
We can start with Turkana boy. There is no scientific way to document a 1.5 million year old age of a fossil. 25 years ago evolutionists were saying that australopicithine fossils were 2 million years old. Now they're stated to be 8 million years old. Lava flow from the Mt. St. Helen's 1980 eruption was dated at 2.2 million years. Geochron Lab published that any date under 2 million years is invalid. So where is the science behind the 1.5 million year date.

Secondly, Turkana boy to me looks 100% modern human. The skull has a reduced cranial capacity, that could easily be ascribed to morphologic variability. Pygmies have a markedly reduced cranial vault.,.. yet they are no less intelligent than any other human population. May modern human skulls have very sloped foreheads and prominent brow ridges... so nothing has been demonstrated that documents anything less than a modern human. In addition, the 1.5 million year old date is worthless. The only reason for that date is because it fits with current theories of human evolution.

I also notice that the artistic reconstructions on the wikipedia page that you linked grossly exagerrate the ape-like features of the face... typical of what is published as "scientific". If Turkana boy is such a striking piece of evidence for evolution, why to its actual features need to be misrepresented?
One way or another

United States

#171111 Mar 18, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We can start with Turkana boy. There is no scientific way to document a 1.5 million year old age of a fossil. 25 years ago evolutionists were saying that australopicithine fossils were 2 million years old. Now they're stated to be 8 million years old. Lava flow from the Mt. St. Helen's 1980 eruption was dated at 2.2 million years. Geochron Lab published that any date under 2 million years is invalid. So where is the science behind the 1.5 million year date.
Secondly, Turkana boy to me looks 100% modern human. The skull has a reduced cranial capacity, that could easily be ascribed to morphologic variability. Pygmies have a markuedly reduced cranial vault.,.. yet they are no less intelligent than any other human population. May modern human skulls have very sloped foreheads and prominent brow ridges... so nothing has been demonstrated that documents anything less than a modern human. In addition, the 1.5 million year old date is worthless. The only reason for that date is because it fits with current theories of human evolution.
I also notice that the artistic reconstructions on the wikipedia page that you linked grossly exagerrate the ape-like features of the face... typical of what is published as "scientific". If Turkana boy is such a striking piece of evidence for evolution, why to its actual features need to be misrepresented?
Thanks and good thinking.
KAB

United States

#171112 Mar 18, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I would think that someone who feigns such skill in English composition would know that 'incorrect' is not subject to gradation. One can be incorrect but not more or less incorrect.
Back to 10th grade English class you go.
In a multi-facetted statement one can be partly correct and partly incorrect. If all facets are incorrect then that is the most incorrectly the declaration can be made.
KAB

United States

#171113 Mar 18, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
For now I'll take your word for it that I guessed wrong. But you have established a pattern of asking leading questions, and leading questions do tend to have a goal. So why not just skip right to the goal part?
My goal is to get your side to acknowledge there is no fossil record continuum of posssible single-generation variations between one kind of lifeform and another.
KAB

United States

#171114 Mar 18, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Now correct Aura, hypocrite.
Thanks Nano. You are probably aware that Dogen dismisses anything I offer, just because it's me. I continually make it known he's a hypocrite. The good news is he could change at an moment. I remain hopeful.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#171115 Mar 18, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
breeded
(nonstandard) Simple past tense and past participle of breed.
You act as if standard English is a physical law of anything, sure I should have used bred, but only an anal prick would make a federal case of such trivial nonsense.
You asses do it constantly, hypocrite.

I do what I want.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#171116 Mar 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My goal is to get your side to acknowledge there is no fossil record continuum of posssible single-generation variations between one kind of lifeform and another.
Single generation? Another one of your ridiculous demands like a one year resolution?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#171117 Mar 18, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And to think you once feigned repugnance at a similar statement by me.
Prove I feigned, or shaddup, oh amazing swamiwadgimp.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#171118 Mar 18, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
All breads are selected for either intentionally or not just based on their relationship with humans.
So now you're obsessing about bread? You need to go outside more often.

>:]

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171119 Mar 18, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
My goal is to get your side to acknowledge there is no fossil record continuum of posssible single-generation variations between one kind of lifeform and another.
If I understand your statement correctly, the ToE does not claim to have a generation by generation fossil record of any species. Fossils are rare finds for any species. The continuum is shown in nested hierarchies.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#171120 Mar 18, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Kitteh mention breedin?
I've heard the secret to great breadin is not to over-knead the dough...but I'd make ambrosial butter for a good, double risen, double roll.

http://mymilliways.com/wp-content/uploads/201...

Yum.:p

...eeek, did I type that out loud? xD

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#171121 Mar 18, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He probably saw it in Oklahoma.
You gotta stop listening to Bob, he's nuts.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Aura Mytha 83,798
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 1 hr Frindly 3,162
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr ___Jenny___ 164,911
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 hr Regolith Based Li... 223,190
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Sun Al Caplan 1,995
Time Dec 9 THANKS 2
Evolution exposed Dec 8 Dogen 6
More from around the web