Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Read more: www.scientificblogging.com 178,491

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." Read more
One way or another

United States

#175408 Jun 16, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
For God's sake go and read some basic optics. Its been understood for centuries. You are insufferably boring.
For gods sake? After all you have attacked God and religion, you seem to be the hypocrite you choose to be.
One way or another

United States

#175409 Jun 16, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
For God's sake go and read some basic optics. Its been understood for centuries. You are insufferably boring.
So by your refusal to defend what Polly or Kong claims, that being two completely different things, you choose that of a child.

Ah Yes, how you long for the old days, when you children had no one to challenge you.
One way or another

United States

#175410 Jun 16, 2014
Thank you for playing children but work calls. Have a nice day. LOL
Mugwump

UK

#175411 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I've written a lot of new pieces, that are backed up by simple observations.
Liar - I have repeatedly asked you for the name of ANY galaxy that fits your Red shift nonsense.

After 2 months - zilch

Why lie so much Jim , why are you so spineless

(Guarantee he won't respond directly)
One way or another

United States

#175412 Jun 16, 2014
So children, which one do you back up, Polly or Kong, they both have different reasons for why pictures come to our eyes, but they have no science to back them up. Don't you want to find out children?
One way or another

United States

#175413 Jun 16, 2014
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar - I have repeatedly asked you for the name of ANY galaxy that fits your Red shift nonsense.
After 2 months - zilch
Why lie so much Jim , why are you so spineless
(Guarantee he won't respond directly)
If you can refute what simple observation dictates, I'm waiting. We can't be in two galaxies at the same time idiot. Scientists on earth only have what earth has to offer, but being such an ignorant child that you are, I can understand your confusion.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#175414 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why science was claiming global warming. You should really learn to think for yourself.
Another diversion from the simple fact that you claimed to have invented the term "climate change" and I showed you its been in the literature for 40+ years i.e. you certainly did not invent it two years ago as you claimed.

I think its not deliberate lying on your part. You are just so delusional that you cannot even remember things. You probably THINK you invented the term.

Well, that's where decades of hatred, paranoia, jealousy, and fear will get you. Right where you are.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#175415 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
The children are so funny. Lol
Rattle, blab, babble, jabber, twaddle, prattle, tattle, taddle, waffle.....

And NOW your explanation in great detail of how we "look out" to things, shall we?
And, as promised, your rebuttal of the science of optics too.

FORTY FIRST reminder.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#175416 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why science was claiming global warming. You should really learn to think for yourself.
Rattle, blab, babble, jabber, twaddle, prattle, tattle, taddle, waffle.....

And NOW your explanation in great detail of how we "look out" to things, shall we?
And, as promised, your rebuttal of the science of optics too.

FORTY SECOND reminder.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#175417 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Polly claimed that if you shine a light behind any object a picture of that object will show up on a wall or a projector. That was his explanation as to why pictures come to us and not why we see out to those pictures. Kong presents the lie that he did, which he cannot back up with any science. Do you think you can back up either one of these people and if so, I have a test for you. Tell us, which one of them do you choose to defend.
Rattle, blab, babble, jabber, twaddle, prattle, tattle, taddle, waffle.....

And NOW your explanation in great detail of how we "look out" to things, shall we?
And, as promised, your rebuttal of the science of optics too.

FORTY THIRD reminder.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#175418 Jun 16, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Dan look at this post between oneway and I http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
anything you can add to it that will help explain it to him?
Don't try it.
It has been done I think a hundred times before by dozens of people.
I am NOT exaggerating this.
He is a troubled mind with severe issues.
I don't use this argument in an expletive way, I just say it as I assess it: he is nuts.
He needs help.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#175419 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Then explain to us, why science was using global warming, instead of global climate change. Oh you can't that's right. You never seem to think before you post. That's indicative of a child's thinking.
Rattle, blab, babble, jabber, twaddle, prattle, tattle, taddle, waffle.....

And NOW your explanation in great detail of how we "look out" to things, shall we?
And, as promised, your rebuttal of the science of optics too.

FORTY FOURTH reminder.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#175420 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one that refused to defend poly or call while at the same time claiming that you really don't understand optics. Get a clue little one.
Rattle, blab, babble, jabber, twaddle, prattle, tattle, taddle, waffle.....

And NOW your explanation in great detail of how we "look out" to things, shall we?
And, as promised, your rebuttal of the science of optics too.

FORTY FIFTH reminder.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#175421 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
For gods sake? After all you have attacked God and religion, you seem to be the hypocrite you choose to be.
Rattle, blab, babble, jabber, twaddle, prattle, tattle, taddle, waffle.....

And NOW your explanation in great detail of how we "look out" to things, shall we?
And, as promised, your rebuttal of the science of optics too.

FORTY SEVENTH reminder.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#175422 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So by your refusal to defend what Polly or Kong claims, that being two completely different things, you choose that of a child.
Ah Yes, how you long for the old days, when you children had no one to challenge you.
Rattle, blab, babble, jabber, twaddle, prattle, tattle, taddle, waffle.....

And NOW your explanation in great detail of how we "look out" to things, shall we?
And, as promised, your rebuttal of the science of optics too.

FORTY EIGHTH reminder.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#175423 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So by your refusal to defend what Polly or Kong claims, that being two completely different things, you choose that of a child.
Ah Yes, how you long for the old days, when you children had no one to challenge you.
Rattle, blab, babble, jabber, twaddle, prattle, tattle, taddle, waffle.....

And NOW your explanation in great detail of how we "look out" to things, shall we?
And, as promised, your rebuttal of the science of optics too.

FORTY NINTH reminder.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#175424 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
Thank you for playing children but work calls. Have a nice day. LOL
Rattle, blab, babble, jabber, twaddle, prattle, tattle, taddle, waffle.....

And NOW your explanation in great detail of how we "look out" to things, shall we?
And, as promised, your rebuttal of the science of optics too.

FIFTIETH reminder.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#175425 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
So children, which one do you back up, Polly or Kong, they both have different reasons for why pictures come to our eyes, but they have no science to back them up. Don't you want to find out children?
Rattle, blab, babble, jabber, twaddle, prattle, tattle, taddle, waffle.....

And NOW your explanation in great detail of how we "look out" to things, shall we?
And, as promised, your rebuttal of the science of optics too.

FIFTY FIRST reminder.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#175426 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can refute what simple observation dictates, I'm waiting. We can't be in two galaxies at the same time idiot. Scientists on earth only have what earth has to offer, but being such an ignorant child that you are, I can understand your confusion.
Rattle, blab, babble, jabber, twaddle, prattle, tattle, taddle, waffle.....

And NOW your explanation in great detail of how we "look out" to things, shall we?
And, as promised, your rebuttal of the science of optics too.

FIFTY SECOND reminder.
Mugwump

UK

#175427 Jun 16, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can refute what simple observation dictates, I'm waiting. We can't be in two galaxies at the same time idiot. Scientists on earth only have what earth has to offer, but being such an ignorant child that you are, I can understand your confusion.
There is nothing to refute

You insist that red shift is down to the angles of the galaxies - but give no observations of galaxies to support your argument.

You insist science is all about observation after all

Want to try again?

Coward

(When I said he wouldn't respond - should have said he wouldn't respond rationally)

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) 3 min TrueLogic 159,156
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 min marksman11 141,196
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 2 hr Chimney1 996
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr Zog Has-fallen 18,432
Humans DID evolve from apes! (Oct '14) 22 hr Chimney1 68
Poll How Do You View The New Millerite Adventist Inv... Apr 13 Zog Has-fallen 1
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) Apr 13 Denisova 360
More from around the web