Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 20 comments on the Feb 24, 2008, www.scientificblogging.com story 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94402 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please share with me this "evidence" that you have seen, touched, and tested! I can't wait.
Chemistry, which allowed me to understand how the gene mutations show evolutionary processes.

Fossil records, which are all over the internet and in museums across the globe.

The simple elegance of the theory of evolution to explain all of these.

Vaccines made based on the theory that have worked.

Medications based on the theory that have worked.

The fact that the theory has been so helpful in writing software it's become a tool that I cannot live without.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94403 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
All the evidence supports a young earth creation. And talk about money! You gotta be kidding me! The darwinists control everything! Schools, universities, government, tv, movies, books...you name it. You want to play?- you gotta pay. Talk about dishonest scum!
Again, no such thing as Darwinism. Yet again, prove it. I have seen nothing. The YEC bull hinges on a lack of evidence, we have evidence showing a really old Earth, we have evidence of life existing long before us, we have evidence that human civilization itself is more than 10,000 years old. Ancient Egypt was around for at least 10,000 years before it collapsed, that alone destroy YEC, not to mention the Aztecs, Incas, etc..

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#94404 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Mugwump, I have to stay on top of both worldviews (creation & darwinism) because I need to sort out the "wheat from the chaff" from the secular science and also know creation science and the Bible as well and that's not always easy. What's easy is to just criticize anything that is not in lock-step with your dogma.
So, there's chaff to separate from the wheat in real science, but there apparently isn't in "creation science?" How do "creation scientists" manage to get it 100% right every time?

And, if they're so damn right, where's that list of accomplishments of "creation science?" You still have yet to cite a single one. Don't you worry, I won't forget.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#94405 Jun 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Chemistry, which allowed me to understand how the gene mutations show evolutionary processes.
Fossil records, which are all over the internet and in museums across the globe.
The simple elegance of the theory of evolution to explain all of these.
Vaccines made based on the theory that have worked.
Medications based on the theory that have worked.
The fact that the theory has been so helpful in writing software it's become a tool that I cannot live without.
You have to be specific. All that is meaningless ideological posturing. If you want to discuss something you have to be very specific. What fossil exactly? Vaccines have nothing to do with vertical evolution. Medicines are completely uninfluenced by macroevolution. Most museums are full of propaganda.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#94406 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
All the evidence supports a young earth creation. And talk about money! You gotta be kidding me! The darwinists control everything! Schools, universities, government, tv, movies, books...you name it. You want to play?- you gotta pay. Talk about dishonest scum!
Why did the pendulum swing to the other side? Once, creationism was the dominant paradigm. Why did so many die-hard creationists end up accepting the theory of evolution and geology and chemistry and physics and every other field of scientific study contrary to how today's Biblical literalist "creation scientists" do?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#94407 Jun 15, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
Let's start by assuming a constant rate of separation. The moon is currently 384,000 km from the earth. That is 384,000,000 meters, which is
38,400,000,000,000 centimeters. Now, divide that by 3.8 centimeters per year to get about 10,000,000,000 years. That is 10 billion years.
Now, this is an over-estimate because the separation rate was probably higher at first and slowed down over time. That would reduce the estimate by a small factor, which makes it entirely consistent with a 4.5 billion year old earth.
Seems tha UC has been too busy repeating the claim to check the arithmetic. Wonder if he'll kick it off "The List".

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#94408 Jun 15, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, there's chaff to separate from the wheat in real science, but there apparently isn't in "creation science?" How do "creation scientists" manage to get it 100% right every time?
And, if they're so damn right, where's that list of accomplishments of "creation science?" You still have yet to cite a single one. Don't you worry, I won't forget.
Of course , Creation science is credited for all accomplishments to date.

Now, where's your list?

Tell me one thing that darwinism has done for mankind except to stymie progress and waste time and torture and murder people? How about the 100 "vestigial" organs that we now know have important biological function? Huh? Oh, and how about the time you guys put a talented and educated Alaskan Inuit family in a cage on display that went on tour and also put Mr. Ota Benga in a cage as proof of evolution and darwinist entertainment. Sickening ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#94409 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
If the moon's orbit is receeding at the current rate of 3.8cm per year, how long ago would it have been just touching the surface of the earth and what effect would being closer have on the earth's rotation, axis, and tidal forces?
About 4 billion years ago. Your point is?

Also, you seem unable to address my question.

Why is the moon receding? What causes it to recede?

There is a very simple, common scientific explanation for this. If you are indeed 'on top' of secular science, please supply the answer?

PS: The answer can be expressed in two words

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#94410 Jun 15, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's start by assuming a constant rate of separation. The moon is currently 384,000 km from the earth. That is 384,000,000 meters, which is
38,400,000,000,000 centimeters. Now, divide that by 3.8 centimeters per year to get about 10,000,000,000 years. That is 10 billion years.
Now, this is an over-estimate because the separation rate was probably higher at first and slowed down over time. That would reduce the estimate by a small factor, which makes it entirely consistent with a 4.5 billion year old earth.
Not even close! And you ignored the rotation and tidal effects. Hint: It is not a linear function.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94411 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to be specific. All that is meaningless ideological posturing. If you want to discuss something you have to be very specific. What fossil exactly? Vaccines have nothing to do with vertical evolution. Medicines are completely uninfluenced by macroevolution. Most museums are full of propaganda.
You have entered the conspiracy nut category with your last statement. "Macro" and "micro" are creationist constructs, there is just evolution, the divide is an artificial and arbitrary one invented by creationists in an attempt to explain why things evolve in spire of them trying to claim they don't. In other words, it's a dodge to avoid the contradiction in their own assertions.

There are millions of species of viruses and bacteria, they are all different species, all unique. Therefore, even by your failed creationist idea, they are evolving into new species all the time, your stupid "macroevolution" concept. Due to how simple they are, the change more between generations and so their evolution is easy to witness in a lab.

Until you can get past the conspiracy nuttery and the idiotic creationists' attempt to make up terms, you will never learn what reality is.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94412 Jun 15, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
About 4 billion years ago. Your point is?
Also, you seem unable to address my question.
Why is the moon receding? What causes it to recede?
There is a very simple, common scientific explanation for this. If you are indeed 'on top' of secular science, please supply the answer?
PS: The answer can be expressed in two words
10 billion, Polymath did the math on it. ;)

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#94413 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What fossil exactly? Vaccines have nothing to do with vertical evolution.
What utter nonsense. How many vaccines have you developed? To create a vaccine you need to be able to predict biological activity after being exposed to a chemical/biological agent. It requires our Theory of Evolution.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Medicines are completely uninfluenced by macroevolution.
Please tell me, what the difference is between micro/macro evolution. Where are the 'genetic limiters'? Why are there 'genetic limiters'? Where does micro stop and macro begin?

Your statements contain no sense, and is mouthwash for the ignorant.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#94414 Jun 15, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did the pendulum swing to the other side? Once, creationism was the dominant paradigm. Why did so many die-hard creationists end up accepting the theory of evolution and geology and chemistry and physics and every other field of scientific study contrary to how today's Biblical literalist "creation scientists" do?
Ideology. An alternative to God. This was predicted by the Bible. I would expect to be in the small minority on this.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#94415 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course , Creation science is credited for all accomplishments to date.
Wrong again. You are making statements out of ignorance AGAIN. Creation Science is seen as a joke IN THE EYES OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, where's your list?
Biology
Geology
Anthropology
Paleontology
The Modern medical field
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me one thing that darwinism has done for mankind except to stymie progress and waste time and torture and murder people?
Nobody murders 'in the name of' darwinism. That's like murdering 'in the name' of fractions.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How about the 100 "vestigial" organs that we now know have important biological function? Huh?
Name them
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, and how about the time you guys put a talented and educated Alaskan Inuit family in a cage on display that went on tour
I don't know any Alaskans or Inuits

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text>
and also put Mr. Ota Benga in a cage as proof of evolution and darwinist entertainment. Sickening ideology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga
What about when your people killed the Jews in the name of Christ?

Got mit uns

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#94416 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ideology. An alternative to God. This was predicted by the Bible. I would expect to be in the small minority on this.
Wow. So your bible predicted that people will say it's BS.

You are very easily convinced, aren't you?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#94417 Jun 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
10 billion, Polymath did the math on it. ;)
Saw it now. But as he mentioned, the increments would be larger and decrease with time

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#94418 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even close! And you ignored the rotation and tidal effects. Hint: It is not a linear function.
Rotation and tidal effects???

What in the blue hell are you talking about?

4 Billion years there was no biological life on earth, at all.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#94419 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even close! And you ignored the rotation and tidal effects. Hint: It is not a linear function.
As I pointed out in the second paragraph. The first was an order of magnitude estimate. The actual separation rate probably decreases logarithmically given the nature of the gravitational field. Rotation is irrelevant to the overall effect and the whole of the separation is due to tidal effects. The estimate stands.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#94420 Jun 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You have entered the conspiracy nut category with your last statement. "Macro" and "micro" are creationist constructs, there is just evolution, the divide is an artificial and arbitrary one invented by creationists in an attempt to explain why things evolve in spire of them trying to claim they don't. In other words, it's a dodge to avoid the contradiction in their own assertions.
There are millions of species of viruses and bacteria, they are all different species, all unique. Therefore, even by your failed creationist idea, they are evolving into new species all the time, your stupid "macroevolution" concept. Due to how simple they are, the change more between generations and so their evolution is easy to witness in a lab.
Until you can get past the conspiracy nuttery and the idiotic creationists' attempt to make up terms, you will never learn what reality is.
It's clear to me by now that you don't know what you're talking about. You are the eptitome of vodoo dogmabot zombee.
Mugwump

UK

#94421 Jun 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course , Creation science is credited for all accomplishments to date.
Now, where's your list?
Examples have been provided - you dismiss them

But you haven't even got to the point where you can provide any examples of predictions / breakthroughs based on creation science - want to give it another go ?

Obviously just saying creation science is credited for all accomplishments is meaningless - we asked (again and again) for specific examples

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) 1 hr red and right 161,100
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 4 hr Dogen 1,418
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 14 hr Denisova 13,673
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 hr Denisova 18,697
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 17 hr MikeF 141,290
No Place For ID? Sat GTID62 1
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Apr 23 MikeF 73
More from around the web