Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 5,684)

Showing posts 113,661 - 113,680 of171,209
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116712
Feb 10, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
More un-real scientists
Dr Peter Line
Peter Line’s undergraduate major was in biophysics. After that he completed a Masters Degree and a Ph.D., both in the area of neuroscience. He has had a keen interest in the creation/evolution issue ever since becoming a Christian, as evolution was a stumbling block to him believing God’s Word was true.
http://creation.com/mind-by-design-peter-line...
Articles
Australopithecus sediba revisited
‘Giants’ in the land: an assessment of Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus
New study claims Hobbit was a new species
Fossil evidence for alleged apemen—Part 1: the genus Homo
Fossil evidence for alleged apemen—Part 2: non-Homo hominids
Progressive creationist anthropology: many reasons NOT to believe (A review of Who was Adam? by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (2005))
Australopithecus sediba—no human ancestor
Gautengensis vs sediba: A battle for supremacy amongst ‘apeman’ contenders, but neither descended from Adam
He ain’t my brother: no apparent family ties between Big Man and Lucy
See also an interview with Dr Line in Creation magazine, Mind by Design.
Naturally, despite being employed by an Australian University....
Is a.....?
CREATION RACISM

None of the above crap was published in peer review journals. I wonder why. okay, I really know why so I don't have to wonder.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116713
Feb 10, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
Another un-real scientist
Dr John Hartnett
Physics, Cosmology (Australia)
Biography
John G. Hartnett received both his B.Sc.(hons) and his Ph.D. with distinction from the Department of Physics at the University of Western Australia (UWA). He works with the Frequency Standards and Metrology research group, holding the rank of tenured Research Professor (the equivalent of Reader in the UK, would be Full Professor in the USA). See John’s university web page.
John’s research interests include the development of ultra-stable cryogenically cooled microwave oscillators based on a sapphire crystal, ultra low-noise radar, tests of fundamental theories of physics such as Special and General Relativity and measurement of drift in fundamental constants and their cosmological implications.
John has a keen interest in cosmology and how it applies to the creationist world-view. He is also developing new physics that has established that there is no need to assume the existence of dark matter in the universe. He has published more than 150 papers in scientific journals.
Awards
Dr Hartnett was announced as the winner of the 2010 W.G. Cady award by IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control Society.
The W.G. Cady Award recognizes outstanding contributions in the fields of piezoelectric or other classical frequency control, selection and measurement and resonant sensor devices.
The citation reads:“for the construction of ultra-stable cryogenic sapphire dielectric resonator oscillators and promotion of their applications in the fields of frequency metrology and radio-astronomy.”
The award was presented during the 2010 IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium at Newport Beach, California in June.
I met him last month and he said he is moving to Adelaide
How ironic that he may be occupying the same chair at Adelaide University as Paul Davies....
Ha ha ha
But John is quite obviously a stark raving lunatic since he is a creationist and believes God created in 6 normal length days

Another one who belief in creationism is completely unrelated to the area he actually works in.

That is the way most of them are.

There are actually several hundred PhD creationists (world wide0.
There are about 2 MILLION PhDs world wide.

you do the math.

There are over a million scientists in biology alone in the U.S.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116714
Feb 10, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
How about another un-real scientist?
And trust me there are many...
Ann Gauger
is a senior research scientist at Biologic Institute. Her work uses molecular genetics and genomic engineering to study the origin, organization and operation of metabolic pathways. She received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
Totally un-real since she believes there is evidence of design in nature
CREATION/DESIGN RACISM
By the way, it was Dr Gauger's framework that I used heavily in my posts about HLA-DRB1
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Human-Origins-A...
But there are on-line versions of this book

There are more scientists name Steve than there are scientists who are creationist.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116715
Feb 10, 2013
 
Poor little Evo children, brainwashed in the blood of creationism. They don't even recognize that they have become what they hate so much. The devil works in mysterious ways Evo morons.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116716
Feb 10, 2013
 
Watch out, that Evo moron is blowing a gasket.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116717
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Russell, you are still being an idiot. I already told you I wanted peer reviewed science in the topic of creationism that your scientists have done.

A doctor may be a brilliant brain surgeon and a terrible podiatrist. If a brain surgeon told a podiatrist what he was doing wrong with his patients feet do you think he would be listened to?

What creation "scientists" try to do is far worse.

So you can be a competent electrical engineer and a terrible geologist. Or an able information specialist and an idiotic biologist. Creatard scientists let their success go to their heads and ignore the experts in other fields at their own peril when they try to work in those fields.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116718
Feb 10, 2013
 
Gosh, the Evo morons want peer reviewed BS for money. Now you should know better. You know evolutionists can't stand on their own two feet and argue for themselves, just look what they do here, learning from the fully corrupt scientists for money.

Now be nice, they were taught to believe whatever BS they are given. You know they can't think for themselves.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116719
Feb 10, 2013
 
former CIA Director, William Casey, “We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116721
Feb 10, 2013
 
You know the disinformation program works best on the most disenfranchised, they want revenge for all the years they chose not to get along.

Be nice to them, they have nothing else. They are small, weak and stupid.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116722
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Russell, I tried to watch your video but he never seemed to make a point.

Did he have anything to say or was he like you, a total idiot?
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116723
Feb 10, 2013
 
By the way, small, weak and stupid are a frame of mind. There are many short people that think big. Sadly, there are many here that are very small in word and deed.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116724
Feb 10, 2013
 
You can very easily spot the neediest children, they are always looking for help and confirmation from the other small, weak and needy. Oops, that describes all the Evo morons here.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116725
Feb 10, 2013
 
Children never grow up, as long as they depend on others.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116726
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

When a grown up is debating someone and anyone else tries to make excuses or defend them, an adult chases them away, exclaiming that they can defend themselves. Children are grateful for the help, because they know they are too stupid to defend themselves.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116727
Feb 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is:
Observable (creationism isn't)
Well, creation is well observed
...but I take your point
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Testable (creationism isn't)
I think it is..
Not actually creating, but being able to test 'various kinds' reproducing as Genesis states God had ordained
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Makes predictions (creationism doesn't)
Yes. With the starting premise that God created, anyone could predict that biochemical cascades, structures, and processes would rely on precision and complexity that could not be possible via gradualism

And that is exactly what is observed
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Is falsifiable.(creationism isn't)
Here you are right

But neither is evolution

The equivocation used by evolutionists
For example, your high priest Dawkins..

"...when there is systematic increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in a gene pool, that is precisely what we mean by evolution".

Similar definitions include 'evolution = "change in gene freqeuncy with time"

Or "descent with modification"

An example is the atheist Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the "pretentiously" named National Center for Science Education, the leading US organisation devoted entirely to pushing evolution....

...cited a teacher approvingly whose student after being told the definition of evolution, said, "Of course species change with time! You mean that's evolution?"

That's a caricature of evolution

Things changing...
Of course they change...

We could all be evolutionists if that's all it takes..

We could pack up and go home

How do you falsify that definition?
You can't

What is evolution?(Kerkut)

“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments.

On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”

-—Kerkut, G.A.(1927–2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960 (available online in the Public Domain at ia600409.us.archive.org/23/items/implications... ).
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116728
Feb 10, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Conforms to the principle of parsimony.(creationism doesn't)
Russell Griggs talks about the application of 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum’ to the creation/evolution debate:

"Is Occam’s Razor valid when it comes to discussing the supernatural? Well, atheists seem to think so. The Skeptic’s Dictionary says:‘atheists often apply Occam’s razor in arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis.’5

And in his bestseller, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, discussing the uncertainty principle, writes:

Stephen Hawking's book
‘We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much use to us ordinary mortals. It seems better to employ the principle of economy known as Occam’s razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed.’6

However, by invoking Occam’s Razor, sceptics make a rod for their own backs for, as we shall see, once the validity of Occam’s Razor is admitted and this criterion is applied to aspects of the creation/evolution debate, the results are clearly on the side of creation and against evolution.

He goes on to explain why
http://creation.com/occams-razor-and-creation...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Is self correcting (creationism isn't)
That is all evolutionary 'science' has done
Is correct itself

There is little or no consensus in the field of evolutionary 'science' at any given time

Propaganda, bluster and carrying on's


When the starting and central premise is erroneous, continual corrections are the name of the game

But guess what?

Evidence and 'facts' change constantly but the fixed belief that evolution is true NEVER changes

Mary Schweitzer is a case in point
Seeing the 'unbelievable' soft tissues including collagenous tissues and red blood cells... in dino bones

But the dogmatic central paradigm that these were 65 million years old and therefore COULD NOT be present

She tested her findings 17 times to make sure

I thought science was unbiased?

No starting biases??

Not true when 'evolution' is in town

Its the ONLY game in town

I don't know what field of science you are most familiar with, but the forensics type of 'science' used in evolution eg paleontology, phylogenetics, biological anthropology...is forever in a state of self correction...

This is precisely what Dr Lines talks and writes about

And
This one is great for Chimney...if he --or she-- is still around

http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-s...

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116730
Feb 11, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Science Process - from data (observation) to hypothesis to testing to theory
If that were true in evolutionary circles, evolution would have been abandoned long ago

Take “evolutionary stasis” for example
Evolution is change—even as per your own definition
Stasis is “no change”
So how is “evolutionary stasis” evolution?

Dr Batten has written:

"Furthermore, some evolutionists have admitted that living fossils (‘stasis’) are a big problem for evolution.2 They have no explanation. This is not about suggesting that something has to go extinct if something evolves from it; that is not the point. The point is the lack of change, which is a huge problem for evolution, which is about vast changes. As high-profile evolutionists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge admitted,“the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”3

http://creation.com/dodging-living-fossils

http://creation.com/why-young-age-creationism...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationism process - starts with belief then attempts to rationalize the data.
That is precisely what evolution is about
Start with “evolution or BUST” and FORCE every result to fit that ‘fact’
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Christianity has shunned science from the start. Early scientists were lucky if they did not get burned at the stake.
Wrong

Have you read much about the history of science?

I quote, a likely hostile witness, Professor Harrison, who has published on the ABC website an article, about this same subject and says at the very end:

“Those who have magnified more recent controversies about the relations of science and religion, and who have projected them back into historical time, simply perpetuate a historical myth. The myth of a perennial conflict between science and religion is one to which no historian of science would subscribe.”

--Harrison, P,“Christianity and the rise of western science”, ABC Religion and Ethics, 8 May 2012

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/...

Naturally no debate about this matter is complete without
http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not true. Science was very strong in early Islamic culture.
Er, no
More propaganda...

Here I refer to your high priest again
He doesn’t agree with you

But he has been known to be quite wrong about far more important issues....so it’s up to you if you want to see this

http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/596...

However, I very much would like you to read this ....if you choose to, of course

It may help correct your many misconceptions about science and Islam

http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
As Dr Sarafti gave up science for a cush little job were he did not have to produce science it is hard to take his musings seriously, especially since they are rife with inaccuracies.


Dr Sarfati is known to be quite meticulous in his research and has a vast intellect

He would be delighted to receive any feedback you may have in regards to his “inaccuracies” and I would be delighted to pass them on to him, as contrary to your unsupported claims, self-correction, like DNA polymerase, is an integral part of what creationists at CMI do

Dr Sarfati gave up secular work to serve God, and accepted a huge drop in salary

He most certainly has not “given up science” as you suppose, he is immersed in ‘science’ every day

http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-sarfati
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116731
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Russell wrote:
Well, creation is well observed
Funny, I certainly don't recall any scientific information supporting the death of every single living thing in the entire universe rescued by magical poofing.
Russell wrote:
Yes. With the starting premise that God created, anyone could predict that biochemical cascades, structures, and processes would rely on precision and complexity that could not be possible via gradualism
Ah, well done. You just openly admitted your only support for creationism rests solely on negative, anti-evolution arguments rather than positive objectively verifiable scientific evidence.

Of course when your position is one of invisible Jewish magic evidence is utterly superfluous.
Russell wrote:
Here you are right
Of course he is. Can't falsify it when you can just use magic to save it.
Russell wrote:
But neither is evolution
Of course it's falsifiable. Fossilized re-Cambrian lepi? Dog giving birth to a cat? Human born with the genome of a cactus? Centaur fossil? Pegasus? Pigasus? One confirmed case of cow created by magical poofing? Evolution falsified.
Russell wrote:
That's a caricature of evolution
Things changing...
Of course they change...
We could all be evolutionists if that's all it takes..
We could pack up and go home
Yes well I DID tell you that MONTHS ago when I pointed out you could never win using your position. Yes, life changes. Fact. Hence why YECers have to pretend the Earth is MUCH younger than what it really is so they can pretend evolution can't happen. Because they know as well as us that if changes continue to accumulate we WILL end up with a very different animal.
Russell wrote:
How do you falsify that definition?
You don't falsify definitions. Definitions are arbitrary. Hence why someone chose "apple" as a definition of a particular fruit and "car" as a definition of a particular type of vehicle. Instead you falsify hypotheses. And that would be the one about common ancestry. You know, that working falsifiable one which you're simply unable to falsify, and just admitted it. Especially when it's highly supported by science:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T5V...

So yeah.

You may as well go home.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116732
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

One way or another wrote:
Gosh, the Evo morons want peer reviewed BS for money. Now you should know better. You know evolutionists can't stand on their own two feet and argue for themselves, just look what they do here, learning from the fully corrupt scientists for money.
Now be nice, they were taught to believe whatever BS they are given. You know they can't think for themselves.

Projection
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116733
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Russell wrote:
Evidence and 'facts' change constantly but the fixed belief that evolution is true NEVER changes
Mary Schweitzer is a case in point
Seeing the 'unbelievable' soft tissues including collagenous tissues and red blood cells... in dino bones
But the dogmatic central paradigm that these were 65 million years old and therefore COULD NOT be present
Still pushing that old fundie lie, eh? Even after we debunked it oh so many months ago.

Here's your problem bubba - The creationist arguments against it have NOTHING to do with evolution. The beef is that the sample cannot be that old because organic substances don't last that long. THEREFORE evolution "can't" have happened because the Earth is "too young".

However this addresses NOTHING about the hypothesis of common ancestry. Therefore if we take the fundie claim at face value that the Earth is young because of this discovery, evolution would STILL be valid because it's NOT the case for common ancestry that would have been falsified.

And as someone who thinks the Earth is young therefore radioactive decay of ALL known elemental compounds is somehow accelerated to such EXTREME levels that universal temperatures would be a problem for living things, but somehow we're all still here to talk about it... then you should have NO problem whatsoever with accepting evolution being accelerated to such extreme levels where cancer would be a problem for all living things and would usually wipe out all life too.

But somehow we're still here to talk about it.

That IS exactly what the whole Garden of Eden and Noah scenarios REQUIRE after all. It's just that fundies are too dumb to understand the consequences of their own position.

In the case of the T-Rex collagen sample it is hypothesized that certain compounds can last longer than originally expected. This is helped by the fact that the sample was dried out and hermetically sealed in solid rock protected from the elements.

The scientific community have come to the general conclusion that this is a far more reasonable explanation than killing off all life in the universe in multiple different ways and having everything fixed by magical poofing from an invisible Jewish wizard.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 113,661 - 113,680 of171,209
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

26 Users are viewing the Science / Technology Forum right now

Search the Science / Technology Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 18 min Pokay 5,033
Love's opens Oklahoma travel stop 2 hr Regular Fuel Stop 1
Philips Unveil First 4K TV To Be Powered By Goo... 7 hr Techgeek 1
How to Recover Deleted Contacts from iPhone 4 w... (Sep '12) 7 hr Sophia 56
How to Transfer Contacts & SMS from Nokia to An... (Mar '13) 11 hr priscillabrian 3
How to recover deleted files on iPhone 5 iOS 6?... (Oct '12) 11 hr Sophia 43
Good sexual intercourse lasts minutes, not hour... (Mar '08) 12 hr HumanSpirit 645
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••