Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#93392 May 31, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You want a tissue to wipe the jizz out of your pants? All that mental masturbation has got to make a big mess.
So that's it? You're not going to address it? Just some childish disgusting comments? I guess I'll just have to interpret your silence on these matters as full acceptance. Talk about small penises!

Since: Apr 12

United States

#93393 May 31, 2012
WordofPen wrote:
Eh... just to point something out guys, but all the ad hominem attacks going on between people (on BOTH sides) make everyone make your legitimate arguments look a lot less credible. Not retaliating against things like this, and keeping your language calm is a much better way to make the other person's argument collapse. Plus arguments stemming from religious beliefs tend to overflow with ipse dixits, appeals to tradition, arguments from silence, arguments from ignorance, argument ad populum, and the infamous invincible ignorance fallacy, along with a lot of other logical fallacies. Pointing those out goes a long way towards discrediting someone's argument, and makes it so much cleaner, too.
Just a thought.
I totally agree with you. To all, please stop trading personal insults.

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#93394 May 31, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
By other creationists. Hardly an unbiased review. Hardly impartial.
And you know that.
Peer-review and individual bias are two separate, mutually exclusive concepts. Secular journals assume Darwinism; mine assume creation. But they both require peer-review.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#93395 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So do ours; we have brilliant researchers who come form the finest universities all over the world and have thousands of peer reviewed articles specifically creation science-based. Yes, we also reference secular research often as it usually (unwittingly) supports Creation! Try researching genetic mutations and if you read them with a creation world view, it will be obvious what the conclusion is.
Ours have the correct world view and not some false Darwinian ideology. Your secular researchers assume evolution true even though there is no evidence. Their beliefs require even more faith than Creationists since at least Creationists have thousands of years and millions of people that have scrutinized it and the Bible which is the most vetted set of books in history. And the latest advances in science prove this out; that is was right all along.
Darwinsism is just the latest speculation that has been around for the blink an eye compared to Creationism and it completely lacks any evidence. There is no mechanism that has ever been observed for neo-Darwinian evolution to happen. Just the opposite, everything in the physical world is running in the opposite direction. Entropy! Genetic entropy!
Neo-Darwinism cannot explain complex biological information or the DNA language-RNA trancription-protein transcription cycle; it can't explain super-tech biological motors such as the energy-producing ATP Synthase motors or other irreduclibly complex systems; it can't explain all the extreme fine tuning with the universe expansion rate fine tuned to a razor's edge or galaxy formation or star formation or solar systems or our water planet and how it is perfectly placed for life. No, your secular Darwinism is a massive effort simply to avoid God and make up fancy just-so stories but the more you try the worse it gets. And because of this, what a massive waste of time and energy! Instead of applying concepts of intelligent to design (like everything intelligently made in the word) to benefit mankind, you continue this fruitless search to eliminate God or validate a wish that never happened (evolution). Numerous cases where darwinism actually harmed mankind: removal of "vestigial organs" later determined to have important function!
Still no clear set of transitional fossils pointing to naturalistic vertical (macro) evolution. All the biological evidence including fossils and living organisms point clearly to a top-down evolution and against a bottom-up pattern. Microevolution or genetic adaptation/selection clear does not equate to neo-Darwinism and universal common ancestry; fruit flies were alway fruit flies!
No evidence of universal common ancestry even though your ideology assumes it true. And still not a trace of evidence that any mutation could ever result in a new, nascent gene that codes for a more advanced biological function or organ. What you've got is a church and an ideology with the primary axiom as your statement of faith.
Oh, you mean just like Santa Claus is peer reviewed by six year old children?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#93396 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Peer-review and individual bias are two separate, mutually exclusive concepts. Secular journals assume Darwinism; mine assume creation. But they both require peer-review.
Uh-huh.

Secular journals assume current scientific theories to be correct unless proven otherwise. Creationist journals assume current scientific theories are incorrect if they conflict with the bible. Their own website state as much. That's a presumption. That's a bias.

A little surprising that this goes over your head. Or is there another reason?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#93397 May 31, 2012
rpk58 wrote:
<quoted text> I totally agree with you. To all, please stop trading personal insults.
:-P

.
.
.
.
{just kidding}

Since: Apr 12

United States

#93398 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.
Not my problem.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#93399 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
A new lie! The Journal of Creation is peer-reviewed you bigoted stupid moron.
No it isn't. You, and they, claim to be peer-reviewed, but the reality it is not. A number of folks in here have already pointed that out to you. Go back and read for comprehension and you might get the idea, although I doubt it.
<quoted text>
You mean, like "Pimple"? Mr. Hypocrite? You insinuated that I was unemployable and uneducated. I have not lied to you about anything. You are the only liar around here.
Yet in your comment, the one I quoted, you didn't say I insinuated anything. You said that I stated you were unemployed and uneducated. I was stating my opinion that you demonstrate nothing that resembles education and I wasn't insinuating you were unemployed, I just find it hard to believe you can keep a job because of your own behavior.
<quoted text>
Wrong again moron! How can you possibly be this stupid?(I guess you thing they give out pilot's licenses online too eh Teddy Boy?) You dumb@$$!
"What else is required to complete the course?
Prior to certification as a PADI Open Water Diver, you'll visit your PADI Dive Center or Resort to complete your training. You'll take a short eLearning Quick Review to confirm your understanding of safety-related material from the course, and you must successfully complete five confined water dives and four open water training dives with your PADI Instructor. You learn and master each of the required skills in confined water (swimming pool-like conditions) first before moving on and showing your instructor that you can comfortably repeat those skills in open water. As a PADI Open Water Diver, you will be a certified entry-level diver able to rent dive gear, get air fills and dive anywhere in the world in better or similar conditions to those you've trained in."
http://www.padi.com/elearning-scuba-registrat...
Actually, you should look at little deeper. There is no standard for SCUBA certification, like I said.
Here, try wikipedia: "Recreational scuba diving does not have a centralized certifying or regulatory agency, and is mostly self regulated."

On a vacation one year hotel concierges in the area were telling guests which places that weren't too picky about things like certifications -- speaking about power boat, diving, and such. Self-regulated is not always a good thing. The example you pointed out is one of the ways to do it right.
<quoted text>
That nice.....but you're still a loser because you're such a liar. Interesting you didn't mention you IT certifications. I also happen to be a Certified Information Systems Auditor.
You ask for information and I provided it and now you are criticizing the level of detail I gave you. Are you truly this stupid? Sorry, rhetorical question. Don't bother answering. Someone can explain to you what 'rhetorical' means.
You aren't making any points here. The best part is your complete and total loss of Pascal's Wager!

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#93400 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Peer-review and individual bias are two separate, mutually exclusive concepts. Secular journals assume Darwinism; mine assume creation. But they both require peer-review.
No, once again you misrepresent the peer-review process followed by scientific journals. They do not assume much of anything, what they require is that the author meets certain standards in their work, in their methodology, and in how they support their results. Often the reviewers disagree with the results, but if the standards are met, disagreement does not stop publication. Peer-reviews in science bear a lot of similarities to defending a Master's Thesis. Sceintific peer-review isn't perfect, but it works.

'Peer-reviews' in Creationist organizations have no process, meet no standard. The ones that bother to explain anything of their process are very open about how the Bible comes first. That's not peer-review, at best it's editorial review.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#93401 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ours have the correct world view and not some false Darwinian ideology. Your secular researchers assume evolution true even though there is no evidence.

<edited for clarity and sanity>

What you've got is a church and an ideology with the primary axiom as your statement of faith.
You just don't realise the double standards you apply between creation science and ... Well proper science,do you?

All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false
http://www.icr.org/tenets/

Section 2: Basics
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

So by you OWN definition - the two above creation science orgainisations are not practicing science either as they rely on assumptions that cannot be proven (at least in a scientific sense)

Now I have put this to you about 3 times now - and you have ignored it, so can we presume you accept that creation science is either
a) guilty of the same failings you accuse evolutionary science
b) not science

Just to remind you
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So that's it? You're not going to address it? Just some childish disgusting comments? I guess I'll just have to interpret your silence on these matters as full acceptance. Talk about small penises!

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#93402 May 31, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
No, once again you misrepresent the peer-review process followed by scientific journals. They do not assume much of anything, what they require is that the author meets certain standards in their work, in their methodology, and in how they support their results. Often the reviewers disagree with the results, but if the standards are met, disagreement does not stop publication. Peer-reviews in science bear a lot of similarities to defending a Master's Thesis. Sceintific peer-review isn't perfect, but it works.
'Peer-reviews' in Creationist organizations have no process, meet no standard. The ones that bother to explain anything of their process are very open about how the Bible comes first. That's not peer-review, at best it's editorial review.
Hogwash...

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93403 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hogwash...
Mugwump and Ted have gone to considerable lengths to explain to you how "creation peer review" differs from science peer review.

All you can say is "hogwash"

Well, really, you have summed up your argument succinctly, in all its length and breadth.

Congratulations.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#93404 May 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mugwump and Ted have gone to considerable lengths to explain to you how "creation peer review" differs from science peer review.
All you can say is "hogwash"
Well, really, you have summed up your argument succinctly, in all its length and breadth.
Congratulations.
To be fair Ted has gone to greater and more eloquent lengths about peer-review, I am simply trying to point out the complete double standards that UC applies.

But as I said on my above post - that was the 4th time of putting this to UC, and as he has never once responded we can assume he agrees that creation science is not science.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93405 May 31, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>No it isn't. You, and they, claim to be peer-reviewed, but the reality it is not.
Wrong! They ARE peer reviewed! By a panel that will accept only evidence consistent with 6 day creation, 6000 years ago, as the Bible says!

That is still peer review!

Its just not scientific peer review.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93406 May 31, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
To be fair Ted has gone to greater and more eloquent lengths about peer-review, I am simply trying to point out the complete double standards that UC applies.
But as I said on my above post - that was the 4th time of putting this to UC, and as he has never once responded we can assume he agrees that creation science is not science.
Urban Cowboy cannot be accused of double standards. If it disagrees with the Bible, it must be wrong. That is a very single standard.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93407 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Secular journals assume Darwinism;
no they don't, when examining evolution.
mine assume creation.
Yes, they do. Always. It is your primary axiom. Science has no primary axiom.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#93408 May 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't we step back from the evolution vs creation debate for a time and simply decide what defines a cult?
Oxford offers the following:
"cult
Pronunciation:/k&#652;lt/
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object
a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members:
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing"
I don't really see that the modern evolutionary synthesis fits into any of that, whereas I do see literal biblical fundamentalism as fitting into it.
But instead of me attacking your views and you attacking mine, why don't we instead explain why our own views are NOT cults, in our opinions?
I have to go out right now, but happy to write up this later.
How to recognize a cult:
http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html

1) Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.

The creotard churches attempt to exert a great deal of control over their members, dictating allowed forms of belief.

Evolutionary scientists follow many different forms of belief, and range from a complete lack of faith to being devout believers of various faiths.

2) External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing membersÂ’ external political and social behavior.

Creotard churches are attempting to force the teaching of real science out of the classroom, and frequently attempt to force other areas of their belief system on the population at large.

Evolutionists cover the range of political parties.

3) Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed.

Creotard churches all claim to have the One True Pipeline DIRECT to the one and only God of all creation. Many of them disagree with all other creotard churches on this matter.

Evolutionists are constantly searching for more and better answers.

There are a total of 18 areas. I leave the remainder as an exercise for the students.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#93409 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hogwash...
No...pretty much the truth. Biblical organizations such as ICR lie all the time, they misrepresent the real science and put out their own version of "Junkscience"

NEVER believe places such as ICR, Aig, or any such place.

It's just a fact of life...religion lies for Jesus all the time.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#93410 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on....a submitted paper like that would not even make it out of its wrapper. Nobody even tries anymore. The truth is there is a complete censorship of anyone who dares offend Darwinism. It is the manner in which the criticisms evoke strong emotions that make it more ideology than science. Just read through this forum. These people don't know me but they surely hate me; not because of who I am but because I don't accept their beliefs.
No, we laugh at you, we don't hate you. Nobody takes you seriously enough to actually hate you.

And any REAL scientist that could present a REAL scientific refutation of the Theory of Evolution that could be replicated by other real scientists regardless of their religious background would in fact win the Nobel Prize

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#93411 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me the part about the finches when weren't yet birds and then we we'll have a conversation. But like everything else, from alligators to butterflies, they were always birds! Your theory is plum stupid - why can't you see that???
Alligators and butterflies were always birds????

Somehow, that is about what I would expect from a creationist...

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Chimney1 40,886
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 5 hr VetnorsGate 10,626
News Strange 'purple blob' on Pacific seafloor baffl... 7 hr Knock off purse s... 2
How to use iphone backup extractor to recover l... 15 hr markost 4
How to recover deleted numbers on samsung galaxy? 15 hr markost 2
First eGo AIO Box Ever! The eGo AIO Box Mod by ... 15 hr markost 2
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... Fri Retired SOF 341
More from around the web