Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179505 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.

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128251 Apr 26, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
[sigh] we don't complain that creation.com and AIG are not valid because they are Christian, we complain (or more correctly point out the obvious) when they come out with crap like this, and call it science.
"If we accept all observations about the universe, realizing they are tainted with certain assumptions, which may be wrong, then creationists have a starlight-travel-time problem. This is true if we believe only 6,000 years have passed since the creation of the most distant light sources, and that they were all created at that time, as measured by normal Earth clocks, and we hold to the convention that the timer was started when the star was created. But if the timer was started when the light first arrived on Earth, when someone first saw the event, then this is the Anisotropic Time Convention,6 and there is no light-travel-time problem. There is nothing to answer"
http://creation.com/creationism-modern-scienc...
I mean only a religiously biased cretin, whom had no idea of how science works, that rejects all evidence that conflicts with scripture without even examining it would call the above a rational statement ......
... Oh hang on, I forgot.
Thanks for the plug.....

But you are quite wrong

As a Christian creationist

I DEMAND that creation.com believe as they do

NO COMPROMISE

I will settle for nothing less than complete and utter belief in the Scriptures

At no time has science been at odds with the Bible
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128252 Apr 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine that! A complete jerkoff accusing me of being a racist. Just the kind of thing a true bigot would say.
Even funnier, he pukes this steaming pile of crap then tell us to grow brains. Hilarious.
So you are happy to read creation.com articles as I continue to post them?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128253 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Who, may I ask, is "this guy"?
And I am sorry to have left you out, Kong
May be next time someone complains that creation.com or answersingenesis.com are not valid sites since they're Christian
The reason that they are not valid is not because they are Christian. It is because they are openly biased against science. Creatard.com even openly admits it.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128254 Apr 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And it's still there! Thanks for being such a loser.
So

Asking for a Bible study again, MikeF?

I wont be able to ignore you anymore if you keep this up

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128255 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Science and Christianity are not at odds, Habiba
You have Christianity to thank for the modern scientific method
AND the freedoms you enjoy
Yahallah
You only need to travel to the ME or Uzbekistan to gauge this
Wrong, just because Christians were involved n forming the modern scientific method that does not mean we can thank Christianity for that.

For example, Hitler and his followers were all Christians. Does that mean we have Christianity to thank for the Holocaust?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128256 Apr 26, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I apologize.
It was "HTS" who falsely claimed to be a "Medical Doctor".
You're just ignorant.
Man you're racist Kong

Now you're saying all cretards look alike!

Horror of horrors

What next?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#128257 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Me thinks I do
DNA is either replicated or its transcribed
Its product RNA, is translated
Protein synthesis depends on this translation
Ultimately, to make a 'you'
DNA is translated
You are embarrassing yourself, Oogah
May be you want to sit in Mummy Rosa Park's lap too?
First you said DNA is code and is translated. Now you are saying that RNA is translated ... OK, I'll play your moving goal posts thingy just once .... RNA is translated by what or who??
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#128258 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the plug.....
But you are quite wrong
As a Christian creationist
I DEMAND that creation.com believe as they do
NO COMPROMISE
I will settle for nothing less than complete and utter belief in the Scriptures
At no time has science been at odds with the Bible
SERIOUSLY?

You really don't get the point I am making do you?

But thanks for (yet again) confirming my point that creationism isn't science.

(I must admit that you are now confusing me, you show a reasonable modicum of intellect, but the fact that you have just completely shot yourself in the foot on this simple point does suggest that you are a windup merchant)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#128259 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Science and Christianity are not at odds, Habiba
You have Christianity to thank for the modern scientific method
AND the freedoms you enjoy
Yahallah
You only need to travel to the ME or Uzbekistan to gauge this
"Christianity to thank?!?!?"

That there have historically been, and ARE Christians who are proper, ethical and competent scientists is without argument.

But they had NO place in developing the Scientific Method, and quite often were the worst enemy of science and rational thinking.

Ancient Greeks, Aristotle particularly, were instrumental in developing the Scientific Method. During the Middle Ages, when "Christians" were burning witches and imprisoning Galileo for DARING to propose a heliocentric "universe", the Muslims were maintaining the flame of science.

You could not be more mistaken, Rusty!

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128260 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So
Asking for a Bible study again, MikeF?
I wont be able to ignore you anymore if you keep this up
Sadly you ignore your own Bible.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#128261 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Batman
Have your Vitamin D levels checked
You're in the dark
The dark is my friend , it's to bad for you.
I don't think it's possible to dumb it down enough for you.
Were you raised by Roo's or Dingos?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#128262 Apr 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Man you're racist Kong
Now you're saying all cretards look alike!
Horror of horrors
What next?
I apologized for mistaking you for someone else.

You also have no clue as to the meaning of the definition "racist", suggesting that you are even MORE ignorant than I previously thought.

...and THAT's saying something.

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#128263 Apr 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right. AIG does absolutely ZERO scientific research that ends up published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Wrong again!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/about

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#128264 Apr 26, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Au contraire mon frere!
I fully understand that they're Christian in nature...as misguided as they may be.
I'm just saying that they're not SCIENCE.
Christians ARE the scientists! Evolutionists are the religious.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128265 Apr 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/about
AIG's so called journal is not a peer reviewed journal at all. At best it is a creatard circle jerk.

There are a few creationists that can do peer reviewable quality work. They never bring their creationist views to peer review since they know that they will be rejected. Not because they are creationists, but because they are wrong and they know it.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#128266 Apr 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/about
That is as credible in the scientific circles, as a fart in church.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128267 Apr 26, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I apologized for mistaking you for someone else.
You also have no clue as to the meaning of the definition "racist", suggesting that you are even MORE ignorant than I previously thought.
...and THAT's saying something.
Yes, after last night I gave him the nickname of "Squishy" since he for the second time if the last few nights posted sources that debunked his claims. In other words he shot himself in the foot. NOt once but multiple times. Hence the nickname "Squishy".
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128268 Apr 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason that they are not valid is not because they are Christian. It is because they are openly biased against science. Creatard.com even openly admits it.
Christians are never biased against science
Christian can do science just like everyone else

The modern scientific method has arisen out of the crucible of Christianity

This article on a site hostile to Christianity

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

Manchester, UK

#128269 Apr 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/about
This is simply a quote that AIG is launching a journal that is peer reviewed, not that any papers produced actually have been reviewed by scientists in the relevant fields.

I know it is an obvious point, sorry to have to point it out.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#128270 Apr 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, after last night I gave him the nickname of "Squishy" since he for the second time if the last few nights posted sources that debunked his claims. In other words he shot himself in the foot. NOt once but multiple times. Hence the nickname "Squishy".
The only Squishy thing here is your head SZ

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) 21 min Chimney1 27,468
How can science prove the expansion of space 1 hr sonoran2 7
News If there's alien life in the universe, where is... (Jul '15) 2 hr Crystal_Clear722 44
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 2 hr nanoanomaly 9,765
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 5 hr Knowledge- 8,262
CorelDraw 9 Error message 6 hr sansegundo 1
News Search for alien life just got a $100M boost (Jul '15) 19 hr The Last Warrior ... 2
More from around the web