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.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#102216 Sep 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. God is life and has always existed so the law has not been violated. Or from a non-religious perspective, I could say this law only applies to the universe as we observe it, so in this respect, the law of biogenesis has never been observed to be violated. The observed always carries more weight than the unobserved.
The energy from the center of the Earth is no different than the Sun in the respect that it is far more random and disorganized than the living cells it is bring delivered to. And furthermore, this is a minor exception as most living cells get their energy from the Sun exclusively. The ability to store energy is already part of the complexity of the living cell and to suggest otherwise would logically be circular reasoning.
So are you saying that a living cell needs only to be left out in the sun in order to thrive? A cloudy day has no effect? There's no difference between flood and drought? CO2 is just as good as any other gas?

Yes of course the sun is a huge influence on the earth, and a sufficiently large influence so that it is unnecessary to go back to an even greater influence, the big bang. What the sun is doing today has an influence on countless billions of other things. What the sun was doing yesterday also has a huge effect on everything today because yesterday set up the conditions for today. And what the sun was doing a million years ago has a huge effect on today because,....well enough said.

All of those influences on countless billions of factors over vast amounts of time cannot be described as a closed system.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#102217 Sep 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, what about it? The instructions for development are already in DNA so the complexity is already there. The radiation from the sun - being far less organized than DNA is causing the entropy in the DNA and the cell to increase.
Occurances that influence living things don't happen just one at a time. At any given moment living things are being influenced by a countless number of factors, and the total amount of all those individual factors is more complex than any one living organism.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#102218 Sep 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. God is life and has always existed so the law has not been violated.
Prove it.

Prove that your "god" exists.

Prove that your "god" is alive.

Prove that your "god" has always existed.

Prove that your "god" has anything to do with the "law" of BIOgenesis.

Prove that your "god" has anything to do with anything.

.
.
.

Can't do it, can you?

Not a single shred of logic, reason, scientific research or empirical evidence for your "god" and "it's" ability to do anything.

BILLIONS of true believers over the course of THOUSANDS of years and not one piece of logic, reason, scientific research or empirical evidence for this bronze age, goat herder "god" of yours.

The ONLY reason you believe in "it" is because you delusionally WANT "it" to be real.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102219 Sep 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And so?

You already know "and so". Don't insult your own intelligence by pretending that you do not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102220 Sep 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what does it say Dogen? Go ahead, make my day.

Then what does it say Urb? Go ahead, make my day.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102221 Sep 15, 2012
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything after the big bang is entropy. Everything.

From a systemic level this is true.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102222 Sep 15, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.

And the study of each is involved in separate disciplines in science.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#102223 Sep 15, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
And the study of each is involved in separate disciplines in science.
And involve different underlying processes.
Mugwump

Belfast, UK

#102224 Sep 15, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
And the study of each is involved in separate disciplines in science.
Have never understood the way creationists conflate abiogenisis with evolution, it seems pretty obvious that the former could happen by 'creation' and evolution be the method the creator imparts diversity, or even the 'creator' let things be and had a snooze after the initial creation event.

Not saying I think this is the case, just seems such a pointless argument to make on behalf of the creationist.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102225 Sep 15, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Have never understood the way creationists conflate abiogenisis with evolution, it seems pretty obvious that the former could happen by 'creation' and evolution be the method the creator imparts diversity, or even the 'creator' let things be and had a snooze after the initial creation event.
Not saying I think this is the case, just seems such a pointless argument to make on behalf of the creationist.

If creationists stopped arguing nonsensical or meaningless points it would suddenly get very quiet here.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102226 Sep 15, 2012
Okay, this is just hysterical.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/14/creationi...

See what rationality is up against!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#102227 Sep 15, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Have never understood the way creationists conflate abiogenisis with evolution, it seems pretty obvious that the former could happen by 'creation' and evolution be the method the creator imparts diversity, or even the 'creator' let things be and had a snooze after the initial creation event.
Not saying I think this is the case, just seems such a pointless argument to make on behalf of the creationist.
What's even more interesting is how the evolutionists keep chanting their mantra, "abiogenesis is not evolution". Why is it so important to separate the two? What possible advantage is there even if it were true? Because the last time I checked, abiogenesis is covered in courses in biology and evolution. That would seem natural since abiogenesis is the orgin of evolution. Two wrongs don't make a right? Evolutionists hate the idea because it's an even greater stretch of imagination than macroevolution and even they have their limits? I'm just curious. This phobia of abiogenesis that evolutionist have, is it due to a complete lack of evidence?(No, that couldn't be it because the same applies to macroevolution.) What other science or ideology I should say, prohibits as strictly taboo, discussion of it's own origins? Do they even know why they do it? Where did this practice originate and what is the argument for it?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#102228 Sep 16, 2012
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it.
Prove that your "god" exists.
Prove that your "god" is alive.
Prove that your "god" has always existed.
Prove that your "god" has anything to do with the "law" of BIOgenesis.
Prove that your "god" has anything to do with anything.
.
.
.
Can't do it, can you?
Not a single shred of logic, reason, scientific research or empirical evidence for your "god" and "it's" ability to do anything.
BILLIONS of true believers over the course of THOUSANDS of years and not one piece of logic, reason, scientific research or empirical evidence for this bronze age, goat herder "god" of yours.
The ONLY reason you believe in "it" is because you delusionally WANT "it" to be real.
Jesus proved it. The Bible proves it. The world and the universe proves it continually. Tons of evidence everywhere. You don't accept it but that's OK with me. What you should really question is why you are so hostile towards it.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#102229 Sep 16, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What's even more interesting is how the evolutionists keep chanting their mantra, "abiogenesis is not evolution". Why is it so important to separate the two? What possible advantage is there even if it were true? Because the last time I checked, abiogenesis is covered in courses in biology and evolution. That would seem natural since abiogenesis is the orgin of evolution. Two wrongs don't make a right? Evolutionists hate the idea because it's an even greater stretch of imagination than macroevolution and even they have their limits? I'm just curious. This phobia of abiogenesis that evolutionist have, is it due to a complete lack of evidence?(No, that couldn't be it because the same applies to macroevolution.) What other science or ideology I should say, prohibits as strictly taboo, discussion of it's own origins? Do they even know why they do it? Where did this practice originate and what is the argument for it?
It's important to separate the two because they are two separate fields of research. Also, abiogenesis is the name of all hypothesis, and mythological stories, of how life came into being. You have an abiogenesis story as well, ours is just scientific, your's is a fanciful tale.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#102230 Sep 16, 2012
I even checked the dreaded anti-creation site, Talkorigins, and it (the mantra = "abiogenesis is not evolution") was not even discussed there!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#102231 Sep 16, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's important to separate the two because they are two separate fields of research. Also, abiogenesis is the name of all hypothesis, and mythological stories, of how life came into being. You have an abiogenesis story as well, ours is just scientific, your's is a fanciful tale.
Why is it important?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#102232 Sep 16, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's important to separate the two because they are two separate fields of research. Also, abiogenesis is the name of all hypothesis, and mythological stories, of how life came into being. You have an abiogenesis story as well, ours is just scientific, your's is a fanciful tale.
Biology in general can be broken down into many more specialized areas of study that evolutionist don't seem to have a problem discussing but when it comes to abiogenesis or just the mere mention of it triggers a severe negative reaction and repulsion and extreme aversion. Why?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#102233 Sep 16, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's important to separate the two because they are two separate fields of research. Also, abiogenesis is the name of all hypothesis, and mythological stories, of how life came into being. You have an abiogenesis story as well, ours is just scientific, your's is a fanciful tale.
No, creation does not include abiogenesis. We do not have our own abiogenesis. We believe that Adam was formed by God in His own image. There was no random, spontaneous formation of nucleotides or amino acids in some slimy pond billions of years ago that eventually morphed into a slug and then into a frog and then finally into a prince. We don't believe any of that. We do, however, accept the law of biogenesis; that life only comes from life.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Easley, SC

#102234 Sep 16, 2012
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Occurances that influence living things don't happen just one at a time. At any given moment living things are being influenced by a countless number of factors, and the total amount of all those individual factors is more complex than any one living organism.
What things? We need to keep this in terms of energy. The basic food chain begins with the plants and photosynthesis so without that alone we would all die. Everything else would be miniscule compared to that. The living plant cell is every bit as complex as an animal cell. Plants can make their own food afterall. And they get their energy from the sun. Now surely, any reasonable person would conclude that the energy coming from the sun is applied in a manner that is more random than the living cell of the plant, therefore increasing the entropy in the cells of the plant. And this is what we observe in plant cells; that they accumulate mutations, age, die, and decompose entirely. This is the evidence that we always observe without exception. Notice that his demonstrable general concept does not bode well for macroevolution. There is no demonstrable mechanism for simple cells to evolve into more complex organisms over time if their entropy is continually increasing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102235 Sep 16, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What's even more interesting is how the evolutionists keep chanting their mantra, "abiogenes is is not evolution".

Because abiogenesis is not evolution. Why might a geologist claim that geology is not astronomy? Same reason.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Why is it so important to separate the two? What possible advantage is there even if it were true? Because the last time I checked, abiogenesis is covered in courses in biology and evolution.

So is biochemistry even though that is an area of chemistry, not biology per say.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> That would seem natural since abiogenesis is the orgin of evolution.

I a causal way, yes. A glacier is the cause of many lakes I it might be mentioned in a book about, say, the great lakes. But the dynamics of the two are different and would be studied by different fields of science.

Please take some science classes.

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 DanFromSmithville 161,212
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 2 hr In Six Days 1,463
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Thinking 18,705
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Mon Denisova 13,673
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Mon 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