Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178616 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135354 Jun 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have attempts to define your version of morality.
You have not addressed the issue of free will.
How can man exercise self determination if everything he does is ultimately subservient to chemical reactions?
We call it a brain. You should consider getting one.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135355 Jun 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not disagreeing with that ethic.
I'm trying to get you to look deeper into the issue.
You speak of morality as some sort of absolute truth.
Is there such a thing as absolute right and wrong?
I say no. The context also has to be considered.
Is it wrong to kill?
Is it wrong for a rapist to kill his victim?
Is it wrong for you to kill to defend your children?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135356 Jun 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because evolution makes a successful prediction that's compatible with ID does not substantiate ID, it substantiates evolution. Problem is if the evidence were entirely different it would STILL be compatible with ID.
I mentioned earlier that he presents a false dilemma. Whether ToE is correct or not has no bearing on the validity of ID. ID must stand on its own.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135357 Jun 13, 2013
Believer wrote:
It won't matter how much knowledge you attain in your lifetime if you cease to exist when you die, unless you use that knowledge for the good of all mankind that will come after you.
Just what good are you doing anyone by calling them stupid, uneducated, idiots, and worse of all fools! And all because they choose a worldview that you don't understand.
Creationists pose no threat to scientific research. We are just as involved in scientific research and discovery, and have reaped the benefits of that research just as you have.
We choose to believe there is a supernatural intelligent designer. This explains the answer to the origin of life FOR US.
You react to anyone with a creationist worldview as if they pose a threat to you in some way. Believe me, we don't.
And as for pushing our views "down your throat," you will not find many believers who think they have the right or responsibility to try to convince you, once (if you are approached by one) you tell him or her that you are not interested.
The Bible tells us to tell the Good News to those who would want to hear it. We can't tell if you are one searching for what we believe God is offering by your outward appearance.
Just a little human kindness is all you need to deal with those you like to call creatards!
Is that more than you are capable of giving your fellow man, a simple "no thank you not interested"?
The Dover Area School District did exactly that. Tried to shove religion down the throats of their students. They got their asses sued, got thrown out of office and pissed away over $1,000,000 dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Do...

So don't try to tell us they don't. They do.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#135358 Jun 13, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is suggesting teaching Creationism as fact. Until it can be disproven, and the majority of Americans still claim to believe in God, it should certainly be taught as one possible worldview!
Any other " conversation" you say we should have would be for what purpose? I frankly don't see what possible difference it should Mae to you what my personal worldview might be!
So, you think anything that cannot be disproved should be treated as equally valid as anything else?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135359 Jun 13, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, that is my point exactly. I think I am about average when it comes to "science" when compared to the average educated individual. Compared to a science major in college or a science professor or a scientist or engineer....that is way over my head...not necessarily to understand, but in knowledge gained through prior study.
I hate pretense! I don't fully understand much of what is discussed here. I am not at all ashamed to admit my lack of knowledge in many, many things.
What I can tell you is what I know to be true from what I have learned in my many years of life.
Faith in God satisfies my mind to answer all the questions we all have that Science has not found answers to.
I look forward to all scientific research will do to improve our lives in the future. And I am thankful for what it has done for us in the past.
I just happen to choose to think there is something greater, something that gives life meaning, and something that brings peace to a broken heart, compassion for my fellow man, and hope that all that we suffer here on this earth is not in vain.
My existence and the choice I have made to live with faith in the God of the Bible is not a threat or a hindrance to you in your life choices in any way.
Do you really think you are accomplishing anything on here that is worth the anger and frustration you seem to feel in all of your comments?
I have no problem with your beliefs. You have every right to them even if I don't share them.

I doubt seriously that any on the evolution side is really angry with any of you. Frustrated? Certainly. Immensely so. Here's why...

You claim that your god created the universe in six days. If so, then why do fundamentalists deny all the evidence left of creation by that god? They absolutely deny the evidence of 'creation' in favor of an old book that they have *no* first hand knowledge of who may have written it.

When the reasons why the Genesis account is incorrect is carefully (and repeatedly) explained, they come up with all kinds of excuses as to why reality is wrong and the book is right. In effect, they deny the obvious evidence that you god left for us to discover in favor of the book of dubious authorship.

So I ask you, why do they deny everything this god left right in front of our faces? Is your god's universe a fake or is Genesis a nice (and incorrect) way of trying to explain how we got here? They both cannot be correct.

The frustration level increases each time this is replayed.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135360 Jun 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Playing stupid becomes you.
BEING stupid defines you.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135361 Jun 13, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is suggesting teaching Creationism as fact.
Not true.
Believer wrote:
Until it can be disproven...
It has been.
Believer wrote:
...and the majority of Americans still claim to believe in God, it should certainly be taught as one possible worldview!
In Sunday school, fine. In a science class, never.
Believer wrote:
Any other " conversation" you say we should have would be for what purpose? I frankly don't see what possible difference it should Mae to you what my personal worldview might be!
It doesn't. It only matters when you preach to us. Or your school district.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135362 Jun 13, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your proof that the a Bible is superstition and mythology?
Some of it is.
Believer wrote:
You don't even have evidence much less proof of that statement!
We do.
Believer wrote:
Where is your proof there was no great flood?
We call it geology. Look into it.
Believer wrote:
What would possibly make you say that people of faith have dismissed science in general?
No one is claiming ALL have. But a good percentage have.
Believer wrote:
That is an unbelievably inappropriate statement for one so "intelligent" to make. A child would know better than that!
Inappropriate? Why is it inappropriate to correct someone misconceptions or ignorance of a subject?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#135363 Jun 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
So, you believe that for me to think logically and scientifically, I should discard common sense and simply expand my imagination to accommodate the dogmas of evolution.
You already discarded common sense long ago.
HTS wrote:
You think I'm stupid for rejecting the suggestion that randomly inserted sequences do nucleotides could code for complexities in the host?
Yes, unashamedly stupid.
HTS wrote:
My Monkey-Shakespeare analogy is valid. OK, I won't require him to produce a specific work of Shakespeare.. Let him type ANY meaningful text in ANY language.
It's not valid at all. There are 7 billion different ways to make a human. All of them with random bits of DNA that no other person has. That kind of thing amounts to typos and discrepancies in books. But not necessarily in humans.
HTS wrote:
If a host was infected, those sequences didn't appear one nucleotide at a time through natural selection. You're saying that thousands of nucleotides just happened to code for something purposeful.
That is no different than believing that a monkey could type anything meaningful.
Ah, but what is the "purpose" of life? I am not pointing out that they code for something "purposeful", as that is a subjective philosophical concept. But what I am pointing out is that DNA provides characteristics, and with different DNA we have different characteristics. If the new DNA kills the organism then it's goodnight vienna. But if it doesn't then it can remain in the genome if not selected out. And if it remains it can possibly eventually lead to new characteristics. "Purpose" is not the issue here, as that is merely the philosophical assumption your entire theology is based upon. Survival is what it's about. As long as the organism survives we don't have a problem.

Your ONLY issue is that you personally cannot conceive how new DNA leads to new characteristics, even though new DNA is added to genomes every day all over the planet. Your issues with reality are your problem and your problem only.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#135364 Jun 13, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting! And I'd be curious to know what you see as the difference in thinking between you and your fellow man who chooses to kill for fun, hates his fellow man if thinks he has a reason.
A reason like "God commands it?"
Believer wrote:
Out of common sense thinking would you not say that moral absolutes are more than a personal choice.
Common sense is one of the most useless concepts known to man. But, beyond that, define "moral absolute." I predict that how you define it will necessarily result in such a concept being unreal.
Believer wrote:
Do you think there are forces for good and forces for evil working in the world to influence us to choose one or the other?
You speak of "good" and "evil" as though they are entities that do something. They're nothing more than labels we place upon actions done by people.

Is it "good" or "evil" to murder an entire city so you can kidnap the virgin girls who live there?
Believer wrote:
It can't be life experience all the time, because some choose the opposite of how they have been raised or how they themselves have been treated.
Have you ever considered saying things that aren't ridiculous and wrong?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135365 Jun 13, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Nowhere in the Bible does it say the universe is very young.
Agreed. However, that is the position of most fundamentalists.
Believer wrote:
Worldwide as we view the world, not necessarily. In Noah's day the known world was still small and believed by most to be flat.
So you agree that it was not global but only the perception of the people of the time.
Believer wrote:
There is plenty of archeological and fossil evidence of a great flood.
But not a global flood. We know there are places on earth that have never been flooded since man has walked the earth.
Believer wrote:
Accounts of such a flood were discovered in the archeological ruins of other ancient cultures as well.
Yes, we know. Floods happen. No big shocker.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135366 Jun 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Your poor cannon ball myth was,---- a big if and it can't be, so go fish. The earths atmosphere prevents it you moron.
My theory of gravity being a push pull, illustrated by the space junk is proof, which you can't refute, but hey, that's your poor education.
Refute the following if you can.
Gravity
Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be tin a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.
The space junk in lower orbit will all fall back to earth, sooner or later. Science claims that gravity is an attractive force only, even with the lesson of the space junk, starring them in the face for decades. As the smartest people say, leave no stone unturned! Morons only consider one side, even without proof
There you go again with your repulsive gravity, jackass. Now deny you said it AGAIN.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135367 Jun 13, 2013
GLXGT wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh the copy and paste king speaks again. You are a hypocrite that accuses people of copy and pate but yet that is all you do and I showed that in your stupid light/laser BS that you tried to look smart on. Go jerk off and shoot it in the floor and stomp on it that way the future will not have to worry about any replication of you. LMAO And yes I am being an @ss to you for I am just tired of hearing your twisted hypocritical BS. Deal with it!
LOL! Well said!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#135368 Jun 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, I know what you ment, you're ignorance and jealousy are all too obvious.
You're too stupid to know that I don't argue for religion, but that's to be expected from such a poor education. Thanks
HA! Sez the dropout. Too funny.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#135369 Jun 13, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting! And I'd be curious to know what you see as the difference in thinking between you and your fellow man who chooses to kill for fun, hates his fellow man if thinks he has a reason.
Out of common sense thinking would you not say that moral absolutes are more than a personal choice.
Do you think there are forces for good and forces for evil working in the world to influence us to choose one or the other? It can't be life experience all the time, because some choose the opposite of how they have been raised or how they themselves have been treated.
You don't have any concept of good and evil. What you call "evil" is everything your god hates, which just so happens to line up with what you hate.

If the Bible said God wants all people hanged who don't like puppies you would call puppy-haters evil. But if the Bible said God says puppies are evil and must be destroyed you would say puppies are evil. Your "morality" is based on nothing more than the subjective whims of the invisible magic Jew wizard. You are not capable of making any objective evaluations of morality.
Believer

Knoxville, TN

#135370 Jun 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The Dover Area School District did exactly that. Tried to shove religion down the throats of their students. They got their asses sued, got thrown out of office and pissed away over $1,000,000 dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Do...
So don't try to tell us they don't. They do.
There will always be passionate people with bad judgement. Science has given us the technology, that is now available to any radical extremist that can surf the web, to blow up buildings killing hundreds or even thousands of innocent children.
Do we want to put what goes on the Internet into the hands of the government?
Government regulation and oversight is one thing. Government control is another. Once you take all reference to the religious principals out of our Founding Documents, our Salute to the Flag, patriotic songs. And our schools, it will only be a matter of time until the real radicals move in and subtly take over the minds of our children.
You probably won't like that religion either.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#135371 Jun 13, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is suggesting teaching Creationism as fact. Until it can be disproven, and the majority of Americans still claim to believe in God, it should certainly be taught as one possible worldview!
Any other " conversation" you say we should have would be for what purpose? I frankly don't see what possible difference it should Mae to you what my personal worldview might be!
No-one's disproven Zeus either, therefore we must teach it as a possible world view.

Oh wait - we can't. Because it is not scientific AND it would be illegal.

Once you can make invisible Jew wizards pass the scientific method then we can discuss about teaching it in public schools.
Believer

Knoxville, TN

#135372 Jun 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you think anything that cannot be disproved should be treated as equally valid as anything else?
Isn't that what you do? My faith is as valid to me as yours is to you. Whether or not you want to use the word "faith" you put your "faith" in science to one day find the proof of the evidence you say has been discovered.
I put my faith in a supernatural God, thus it doesn't matter so much to me what you find in the fossil record or you study of ancient men's bones. Even though I do find it interesting and have always been able to fit it nicely into my supernatural worldview.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#135373 Jun 13, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your proof that the a Bible is superstition and mythology? You don't even have evidence much less proof of that statement!
Where is your proof there was no great flood?
What would possibly make you say that people of faith have dismissed science in general? That is an unbelievably inappropriate statement for one so "intelligent" to make. A child would know better than that!
Actually a child wouldn't, which is why you don't know any better. We have a complete and total LACK of evidence for any GLOBAL flood. We also have life, which would not BE here after you moving BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of tons of mass non-stop constantly worldwide for 40 days and nights.

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 Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing A... 25 min IBdaMann 18
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr lozzza 19,050
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 5 hr SoE 6,270
How to transfer music songs from iPhone iPad iP... (May '13) 8 hr CarsonJoyce 15
News Linux creator says Windows, Os X, iOS and Andro... 12 hr BADGER 2
News Innovation in Space: Canadian companies plannin... 15 hr Kid_Tomorrow 1
Cisco 2960-CX vs 3560-CX Wed Lingdong001 1
More from around the web