Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,180

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." Full Story
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#93362 May 30, 2012
Animal Testing Rocks wrote:
Evoulation is reatarded, how can you people think it is scientifically possible? it ponders me and your all gay!
A well thought out argument against evolutionary theory - you sold me on it

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#93363 May 30, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, Liam! Not to worry. You haven't missed much. Same old...
Sadly, that is just what I expected...

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#93364 May 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of assuming it, shouldn't you get some evidence first?
(Sorry - I couldn't resist that!)
And this is an OUTSTANDING example of the utter failure of creationism. Take one small piece out of context, and pretend that it somehow proves your point, while ignoring the fact that it fully and completely supports evolution when read in its full context.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#93365 May 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No wonder you know so little about science. You head is too full of bicycle part specs.
Science? What the hell are you talking about? Your creationist claptrap has nothing to do with science.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#93366 May 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The overwhelming evidence would dispute your claim. Living fossils, genetic entropy, no mutations have ever resulted in any new, nascent biological function, no transitional fossils, etc. Not to mention the obvious intelligent design, irreducible complex biological functions, motors, DNA language, complex information, etc. In contrast, you don't have any evidence to support your claims.
There is good evidence to support common ancestry from within the original created kinds but none at all to support universal common descent, i.e., from a single cell or whatever, also known as naturalistic vertical (macro) evolution. Furthermore, every thing points to a top-down adaptation with genetic entropy type of evolution - and nothing to indicate that it was bottom-up. Get over it.
Is this pseudo-scientific word goulash typical of the stuff you find in your premium Creationist journals?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#93367 May 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I could claim the same about any secular journal. It's just that your (unstated) statement of faith is really your dirty little secret.
Secular academic journals are peer reviewed by proven professionals in the discipline. These people are almost always full professors at research institutions. They have a proven track record of research and have contributed to their scientific discipline.

You people have pretend and fabrication.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93368 May 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it about Darwinism that causes you people to lie so much?
No transitional fossils? 30+ species (and counting) of avian/ dino fossils where its hard to say which is which, because they show a continuum of features shared. Transitional forms by any other name, and as predicted by evolution.

Living fossils are not evidence against evolution. This has been explained, and you have never refuted the explanation.

And you call "Darwinists" liars, while continuing to pretend these lies of yours have not been countered, with explanations?

At the same time, the purpose of creationist journals and the basis of their peer review - biblical conformity - is not only true, its stated openly in the journals themselves.

And you call "Darwinists" liars, for pointing that out?

You have a serious problem with understanding what the word "truth" means, Urban.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Kalispell Montana

#93369 May 30, 2012
Animal Testing Rocks wrote:
Evoulation is reatarded, how can you people think it is scientifically possible? it ponders me and your all gay!
Come back when you grow up

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Kalispell Montana

#93370 May 30, 2012
Putsoa _pududu hape wrote:
Yes, let evolution be taught in high schools. But since this would offend some people, rather not teach about it as evolution, but "ORGANIC HISTORY, ORGANISMIC HISTORY" or something like that. JUST DON'T DENY CHILDREN THE FACT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER ORGANISMS LIVING ON OUR PLANET MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO DESPITE WHAT THE WESTERN RELIGION CLAIMS.
Why are you screaming??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Kalispell Montana

#93371 May 30, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it about Darwinism that causes you people to lie so much?
What is it about evolution that makes you people so unable to discern the truth in it??

I don't think anyone on this forum is an actual evolutionary expert or biologists...so none of us are really qualified to examine it properly, although many non-theists understand enough to believe it.

The theists are just using predigested creationist arguments and putting up a smoke-screen...much like the right wing Republican does about global warming.

Everyone of the creationist "problems" with evolution can, and probably have been, answered a few thousand times...they just don't accept it because of stupidity and the hope that if they say it enough it might be true someday.

Creationists listen up...your religion has been falsified and we KNOW it's not true. Go away and argue among yourselves about which particular division (out of thousands) has the real true truth...hint, none of you do.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93372 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's the truth?
And now for something completely different.

Please take a couple of minutes to read this, if only because its a viewpoint that is outside the two that we are arguing (and no, evolution is not mentioned).

http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/ar...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#93373 May 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And now for something completely different.
Please take a couple of minutes to read this, if only because its a viewpoint that is outside the two that we are arguing (and no, evolution is not mentioned).
http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/ar...
Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#93374 May 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And now for something completely different.
Please take a couple of minutes to read this, if only because its a viewpoint that is outside the two that we are arguing (and no, evolution is not mentioned).
http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/ar...
OK - Thanks!

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#93375 May 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
What is it about evolution that makes you people so unable to discern the truth in it??
I don't think anyone on this forum is an actual evolutionary expert or biologists...so none of us are really qualified to examine it properly, although many non-theists understand enough to believe it.
The theists are just using predigested creationist arguments and putting up a smoke-screen...much like the right wing Republican does about global warming.
Everyone of the creationist "problems" with evolution can, and probably have been, answered a few thousand times...they just don't accept it because of stupidity and the hope that if they say it enough it might be true someday.
Creationists listen up...your religion has been falsified and we KNOW it's not true. Go away and argue among yourselves about which particular division (out of thousands) has the real true truth...hint, none of you do.
A Darwinist arguing theology. What a surprise!

Since: Apr 12

Havertown, PA

#93376 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
New lies on top of old lies. Ted, where it end?
Ted showed your own quote and proved that you mis-spoke. Honorable thing to do is to acknowledge your mistake.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#93377 May 31, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Secular academic journals are peer reviewed by proven professionals in the discipline. These people are almost always full professors at research institutions. They have a proven track record of research and have contributed to their scientific discipline.
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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#93378 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.
What a load of hooey.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#93379 May 31, 2012
rpk58 wrote:
<quoted text>Ted showed your own quote and proved that you mis-spoke. Honorable thing to do is to acknowledge your mistake.
Prove it.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93380 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.
The ONLY true statement in there that I could find was:

Neo-Darwinism cannot 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..."

Correct. And it was never supposed to.

The rest is just a pocket-book version of your self-deceptions.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#93381 May 31, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.
Well ... back in your post of http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT... you claimed I said you were uneducated and unemployed -- which is another lie.

A couple of posts later I corrected you. I never said you were uneducated, I did say that you haven't displayed anything that demonstrated the education you claim to have.

I also never said you were unemployed. I did say that I would find it hard to believe you could keep a job because of the way you treat people here in Topix.

You, typically, tried to wave your education and annual earnings -- which you should realize means little here. Not only can you write whatever you want, but in your case no one believes you.

You, of course ignored my correction, as is your habit. But the bottom line is you lied about what I said. You know there are some habits that you really should stop.

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
McAfee names Kimmel its 'most dangerous celebrity' 13 min hanna 2
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 18 min NoahLovesU 14,708
Charlie Hebdo/making money 1 hr Linda 3
Nitrogen Powered Hybrid Automobile (Dec '11) 1 hr LarGE 200
Innovation and opportunities shared at Halton R... 7 hr most sold out alr... 1
My apology to Muslims 7 hr Old Pom 4
what is light? 8 hr Jaimie 25
More from around the web