Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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." Full Story
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173649 Apr 27, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No copy and paste necessary Jimbo. Try thinking for yourself.
Start with an enormous gas cloud under the influence of its own gravity.
What happens next?
Why don't you copy and paste what science claims about an enormous gas cloud under the influence of its own gravity and show the proof?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#173650 Apr 27, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you copy and paste what science claims about an enormous gas cloud under the influence of its own gravity and show the proof?
Think for yourself. Its obvious.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173651 Apr 27, 2014
The child and science have no proof. Who would've thought?
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173652 Apr 27, 2014
When you copy and paste anything little one, be sure you can defend it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#173653 Apr 27, 2014
One way or another wrote:
When you copy and paste anything little one, be sure you can defend it.
Oh, I can defend what I say just fine. The problem is that you do not even understand the defence, nor have any desire to, which is why trying to discuss anything with you is a waste of time. I might as well be talking to a donkey.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#173654 Apr 27, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a "model of intelligent design"?
Who is qualified to presume how a God would or would not conduct the creative process?
Darwin said that biogeography was inconsistent with a "model" of intelligent design. In arguing this point, he stated that it would be unreasonable for a God to not populate oceanic islands with amphibians and land mammals because they would make ideal habitats for such creatures. That is a religious assumption... presuming the purposes and attributes of Deity.
I completely disagree. Here's what you said:
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who states that nature is inconsistent with a model of creative design is making religious assumptions.
That is NOT a religious assumption but a scientific one. Lack of evidence. If is a perfectly reasonable and logical conclusion.

Why do you have to constantly interject religion?
One way or another

United States

#173655 Apr 27, 2014
Evolution is not science, it is a religion that cannot stand on its own, that's why it has interjected itself into all the other standalone sciences.

Children are being taught religion in school. It is the religion of evolution.

It is a waste of time and a child's mind, that has no defense against it. The child's mind is forced to learn this religion, with very little scant evidence.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#173656 Apr 27, 2014
One way or another wrote:
Evolution is not science, it is a religion that cannot stand on its own, that's why it has interjected itself into all the other standalone sciences.
Children are being taught religion in school. It is the religion of evolution.
It is a waste of time and a child's mind, that has no defense against it. The child's mind is forced to learn this religion, with very little scant evidence.
I see Jimbozo has mastered the art of parroting others.

Hey, Ryan. No one give a crap about your opinions on science. You have proven over and over again that you don't know a damn thing about the subject. So, as have often been said to you: STFU.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#173657 Apr 27, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you copy and paste what science claims about an enormous gas cloud under the influence of its own gravity and show the proof?

Why don't you get off your lazy butt and look it up yourself?

BTW ever looked up gravity CAUSING spin, rather than the other way around?

We have hinted at it, but you still don't get it.



One way or another

United States

#173658 Apr 27, 2014
Children always revert back to their childish ways.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#173659 Apr 27, 2014
One way or another wrote:
Children always revert back to their childish ways.
Yes, child. You do.
Mugwump

Retford, UK

#173660 Apr 27, 2014
One way or another wrote:
When you copy and paste anything little one, be sure you can defend it.
Jim, when have you EVER defended any of your "science" . You just post it then run away from any criticisms of it like the intellectual coward that you are.

One way or another

United States

#173661 Apr 27, 2014
I now understand why our weather pattern is going haywire and I can prove it, but since I will get nothing for it, just won't say it.

I will tell you this, that no scientist has said before in the open, but they know it. However they do not understand why.

The rotational speed of our planet is slowing down, very slightly, but it is slowing down. Our planet will keep slowing.

This is the cause of global climate change.
One way or another

United States

#173662 Apr 27, 2014
Just as a sidenote, there are two other forces helping to create the gravity that are not fully understood yet.
One way or another

United States

#173663 Apr 27, 2014
Red shift blueshift

The following is my work.

I am Jim Ryan

Red shift blue shift
Galaxies have different speeds. If the galaxy is moving at a different angle than our galaxy, it will always be in red shift. If a galaxy has the same angle that our Galaxy has, it will be in blueshift, because either we are moving towards that galaxy on the same angle or line, while that galaxy is moving towards us on the same angle or line.
Let's say Earth has two blueshift galaxies and then let's say we are moving towards one of those blueshifted galaxies and the other galaxy is directly behind us in a straight line or angle, where all three Galaxies are on the same line or angle. In order for the galaxy behind us to be in blueshift, that Galaxy must be moving faster towards us, than we are moving away from it, towards the other blueshifted galaxy.
We will only see blueshift galaxies when we are traveling on the same angle or line, that those blueshifted galaxies are.
Ergo, red shift has little meaning in its claims of an expanding universe.
One way or another

United States

#173664 Apr 27, 2014
It is also likely that the Earth's revolutional speed is slowing down as well.
One way or another

United States

#173665 Apr 27, 2014
If science did understand, it would get a blank check.
Mugwump

Retford, UK

#173666 Apr 27, 2014
One way or another wrote:
Red shift blueshift
The following is my work.
I am Jim Ryan
Red shift blue shift
Galaxies have different speeds. If the galaxy is moving at a different angle than our galaxy, it will always be in red shift. If a galaxy has the same angle that our Galaxy has, it will be in blueshift, because either we are moving towards that galaxy on the same angle or line, while that galaxy is moving towards us on the same angle or line.
<..........>
To illustrate my point about you never defending your nonsense ....

Can you back the above statement up with some examples of observations , all you have done above is make a statement now it is up to YOU illustrate that it matches reality.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#173667 Apr 27, 2014
One way or another wrote:
I now understand why our weather pattern is going haywire and I can prove it, but since I will get nothing for it, just won't say it.
I will tell you this, that no scientist has said before in the open, but they know it. However they do not understand why.
The rotational speed of our planet is slowing down, very slightly, but it is slowing down. Our planet will keep slowing.
This is the cause of global climate change.
Yes, the planet is slowing very slightly. However the cause is known and predictable. But this is not likely the cause of short range global warming.
One way or another

United States

#173668 Apr 27, 2014
It's very likely that our planet has been slowing for thousands of years in very small increments. However, there's more to it than that.

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
Science News (Sep '13) 24 min positronium 2,947
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 57 min Dogen 134,258
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 5 hr DanFromSmithville 13,630
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 8 hr Dogen 718
How would creationists explain... 16 hr Chimney1 439
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 19 hr DanFromSmithville 507
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
More from around the web