Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,462

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

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#113259 Jan 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
<quoted text>
Kong, we have no interest in teaching religion in public schools. I have subscribed and have been a member of several local, national, and international creation science organizations and this is not even an agenda item.(There still may be a small few that are passionate about it but it is not pursued as such in the larger organizations such as CRS, AIG, ICR, etc. We would however, like to see a more balanced approach taught with regards to evolution. It seems you people just have it out for Christians for some reasons as if for sport or fueled hatred/bigotry. Why do you hate us so much? What have we done to offend you? Does love and charity offend you? I am not a religious person as I don't go to church. But I believe the Bible and Jesus Christ as my creator and savior. Obviously if I believe in creation and intelligent design I would have to believe someone was behind it and I happen to be convinced by the evidence that it is God. It doesn't bother me if you don't believe and I will not try to convince you. Do I ever try and push it on you? No. You need to look inward at yourself and ask yourself why you have this axe to grind. Why you feel the need - the passion that drives you - to insult, belittle, ostrisize, condemn Christians just for what they believe. That's pure bigotry.
Love and charity do not offend me.

The corruption of science by a bunch of liars who deliberately distort the findings of real researchers, i.e. "Creation Scientists", now that offends me. And its not Christian either.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#113260 Jan 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Epigenetic studies in DNA methylation using white blood cells shows major differences between apes and humans. Other studies on brain cells show the same marked differences. It proves apes are different than humans.
http://www.icr.org/article/7157/
Well, right here is the first lie spotted in your article:

"Despite the fact that the most similar type of cell known between humans and apes was selected, scientists were surprised that they detected major methylation profile differences in over 1,500 different regions of the human genome when they were compared to chimp genomes."

In fact white blood cells would be expected to be among the most DIFFERENT, for a very obvious reason. Do you have any idea HOW white blood cells "learn" to fend off novel diseases? They actually activate a hypermutation zone which randomly develops new "keys" - protein sequences" in an attempt to match the profile of new pathogens. That is how antibodies are developed! So in the whole body, its here where you would expect the MOST change after 6-8 million years of separate "disease fighting" histories. Yet your article claims that these cells should be the most similar.

As for neural cells, the other type cited. What do you think is the most obvious and significant difference between humans and chimps. The brain. Duh.

Now, how about they test muscle cells, or liver cells, or bone cells? This is a typical creationist crock.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#113261 Jan 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Love and charity do not offend me.
The corruption of science by a bunch of liars who deliberately distort the findings of real researchers, i.e. "Creation Scientists", now that offends me. And its not Christian either.
You are the liar. And the bigot.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#113262 Jan 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Regarding "macroevolution" this, and the long ages required, is my main complaint.(I am aware of the controversy!) Genetic diversity and polymorphism is observed and accepted; macroevolution, or one kind of plant or animal changing over long periods/universal common descent, into a completely different type, is not.
Speciation in one generation? Where did you get that idea? Creation science doesn't think you or anybody else beleives that. Are you talking about puncuated equilibrium vs. gradualism? I think even that theory requires a scale of tens or thousands of years. It seems you have some major misconceptions regarding creation science. Speciation can occur due to mutation or genetic drift and selection. Regarding speciation, there is allopatric speciation where two populations are separated and sympatric speciation where members have a genetic difference which develops into a different population. There is also adaptive radiation. Or perhaps you were referring to the Hardy-Weinberg Law of Equilibrium that says p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1 where p = T and q = t? This shows how recessive genes remains in a population from generation to generation with the qualification that there is no migration, mutations, selection, or genetic drift occuring. So please clarify.
That's so cute when you talk Biology. Reminds me of a little kid standing on the front seat of his Mom's car and pretending he's driving.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#113263 Jan 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Or how about even wilder ideas like a universe out of nothing from nobody? Or life from non-life? Or microbes turning into men? That's some pretty wild stuff!
Yes, the first one is a wild idea. Fortunately or theories of evolution and for that matter cosmology do not depend on that assumption. "We don't know" is the correct answer - whether the universe came from nothing, whether its the only universe, whether the concept of "before the big bang" is even meaningful.

Life from non-life? Either its physically possible or its not. Nothing wild about that. We either find a naturally plausible pathway or we don't.

Microbes turning into men? That is a wild idea! But this one is supported by mountains of evidence, so like some other wild ideas - relativity and wave/particle duality, its not a crazy one, just one that your intuition has a problem with.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#113264 Jan 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, right here is the first lie spotted in your article:
"Despite the fact that the most similar type of cell known between humans and apes was selected, scientists were surprised that they detected major methylation profile differences in over 1,500 different regions of the human genome when they were compared to chimp genomes."
In fact white blood cells would be expected to be among the most DIFFERENT, for a very obvious reason. Do you have any idea HOW white blood cells "learn" to fend off novel diseases? They actually activate a hypermutation zone which randomly develops new "keys" - protein sequences" in an attempt to match the profile of new pathogens. That is how antibodies are developed! So in the whole body, its here where you would expect the MOST change after 6-8 million years of separate "disease fighting" histories. Yet your article claims that these cells should be the most similar.
As for neural cells, the other type cited. What do you think is the most obvious and significant difference between humans and chimps. The brain. Duh.
Now, how about they test muscle cells, or liver cells, or bone cells? This is a typical creationist crock.
Illogical...delusional...disho nest.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#113265 Jan 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Speciation can occur due to mutation or genetic drift and selection. Regarding speciation, there is allopatric speciation where two populations are separated and sympatric speciation where members have a genetic difference which develops into a different population.
So which of these mechanisms do you believe to be impossible, since you are still convinced of "forever separate Kinds"? Especially given that the fossil record has a complete absence of the modern Kinds in the early part (no mammals, no birds)and the loss of a great many Kinds progressively through the record (armoured fish, trilobites, archosaurs, cynodonts, dinosaurs)?

Still going with the "fastest runner" theory, even for plants??? There have been plants on land for over 400 million years, but no flowering plants appear in the record until 140 million years ago. Even in your compressed timeframe, its still a mystery you cannot answer (but evolution can).

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#113266 Jan 2, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
That's so cute when you talk Biology. Reminds me of a little kid standing on the front seat of his Mom's car and pretending he's driving.
Moronic.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#113267 Jan 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Illogical...delusional...disho nest.
Poor thing. You have no answer.

You cant explain to me why the fastest changing, mutating cells in the body - white blood cells - cells that actually mutate actively in response to pathogens - are claimed to be the most similar and unchanging by your Creation Science buddies?

You have a problem.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#113268 Jan 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the liar. And the bigot.
I will just go back to clear examples that you have failed to acknowledge but cannot refute.

Coe and Prevot did groundbreaking work on fluctuations in the magnetic field during a single magnetic reversal.

Snelling the "creation scientist" skunk blatantly twisted their work to support the completely different concept that the 170+ reversals seen on the ocean floor could have occurred within a 1 year flood period.

His errors were pointed out, and he continued to lie. Never got out there for months crawling around lava beds like they did. Never got his hands dirty or his mind clean.

That's one.

Using the question of the Moon's recession pointed out in the 60's as a problem but ignoring the solution provided by tectonic plate movement - back in the early 80's! Thats two.

Quoting Popper as saying that evolution did not qualify as a testable theory, earlier in his career, but ignoring that he reversed that view later on when he understood evolution better. That's three.

Idiots like Berlinski simply making up stupid numbers (50,000 differences between a cow and a whale!) when he claims the precision of mathematics is on his side. That's four.

Or those idiots that deliberately looked for known sources of error in radiometric dating such as flawed sampling, using methods on inappropriate timescales, etc, to try and debunk the methods, knowing full well that 95% of sampling prove accurate over multiple overlapping test methods. Thats five.

Now claiming that white blood cells should be the most similar with chimps when clearly they should be the most different. Thats six.

There is nothing bigoted about point out to you that your sources are either mistaken or downright lying. Wake up.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#113269 Jan 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor thing. You have no answer.
You cant explain to me why the fastest changing, mutating cells in the body - white blood cells - cells that actually mutate actively in response to pathogens - are claimed to be the most similar and unchanging by your Creation Science buddies?
You have a problem.
No, you have a problem.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#113270 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have a problem.
In order to create a testing ground for human souls, which is what you seem to think this universe is for, was there any need for 10^23 stars, or galaxies so distant their light took 13 billion years to get here? Any need for the Red Spot? Any need for billions of generations of extinct cnidarians?

Saying evolution was not necessary is just silly, given the superabundance of practically everything else in this universe!

Either it pleased God to create a universe with evolution and Quasars, or these things just happened.

Either way, they happened.

Just because primitive men writing the Bible were not aware of them and do not mention distant galaxies, bacteria, or radio waves, does not mean they don't exist. Just because any Genesis account of creation is at best an inaccurate potted summary of the last 13.6 billion years, or at worst merely another pre-scientific human myth evolution is too well supported to ignore.

For all you know, God in his wisdom might have thought it more relevant to primitive tribesmen to give a potted summary than to confound their limited understanding. After all, they seemed to have trouble doing what they were told even when He stuck to the point.

I would suggest that like other Christians who have actually learned science, even going back to Thomas Aquinas, but today including the likes of Glen Morton, Craig Ventor, and Michael Denton, you look at the facts and accommodate them into your Christianity instead of banging your head against the wall or listening to liars.

Its you who have backed yourself in to a corner of such literal rigidity that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113271 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
I used to work at a plant nursery. Every year there some "special" new plants that we would order. It's was either a new flower or foliage color, certain type of disease resistance, different shape, different amount of petals etc. these variations didn't come about on there own. There was a human being responsible for their creation.
Erm, wow, you are really compounding your complete and total lack of study in scientific subjects. That's not "creation," that's actually called engineering. The same way we engineered cattle, corns, bananas, and many others. You need to learn what the word create means.

Also, there is a larger variety of natural flora than we have ever even managed to engineer, it's more possible that a lot of the ones you got that were "special" were even just ones recently added to the collection.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113272 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Illogical...delusional...disho nest.
You shouldn't back the liars you are backing in this. They have been exposed as liars, and you projecting that doesn't help your case at all.

The scientific community admits, and exposes, it's own frauds, you would be wise to learn from them.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#113273 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh go choke on your haggis you lying witch.
Oh yes, christian melt down, I just love to see it.

Honey I have no god to lie for so I have no need to lie, I have zero tolerance for lies and hence the reason you have been chewed and spat out

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#113274 Jan 3, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>What a lovely Xian thought! Jesus is very proud to have you as a fanatic! BTW.... Haggis is a Scottish delicacy, not English.
He would not understand either of your statements

His lies, BS and abuse are nothing more than good funnymentalist christian values

And he appears to be the type of poorly educated guy who considers anything outside the US borders as part of the same village that you need the inconvenience of a passport to visit
One way or another

United States

#113275 Jan 3, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes, christian melt down, I just love to see it.
Honey I have no god to lie for so I have no need to lie, I have zero tolerance for lies and hence the reason you have been chewed and spat out
Said the woman without sin.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113276 Jan 3, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Said the woman without sin.
Since "sin" is a completely fabricated concept, yes, she is without sin.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#113277 Jan 3, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Said the woman without sin.
What is sin? It’s a completely arbitrary concept and different from different points of view.

If you are defining sin a being truthful then yes I am guilty as charged.

If you define it as not being brainwashed by christian pseudo moralistic rhetoric then you are spot on

If you want to define it as immorality then I beg to differ, I am probably considerably more principled, ethical and honest than you or UC could ever be.

Of course you need to consider the actual meaning of morality, forget the “she does not think in a christian way like me so she must be immoral and hence sinful”

Honey the principals of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood were defined many long millennia before Julius Pantera had an sexual craving for a young Hebrew girl named Mary and subsequently re-directed history

Yes I realise that is probably a little above your comprehension but that’s just tough

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113278 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
<quoted text>
Kong, we have no interest in teaching religion in public schools. I have subscribed and have been a member of several local, national, and international creation science organizations and this is not even an agenda item.(There still may be a small few that are passionate about it but it is not pursued as such in the larger organizations such as CRS, AIG, ICR, etc. We would however, like to see a more balanced approach taught with regards to evolution. It seems you people just have it out for Christians for some reasons as if for sport or fueled hatred/bigotry. Why do you hate us so much? What have we done to offend you? Does love and charity offend you? I am not a religious person as I don't go to church. But I believe the Bible and Jesus Christ as my creator and savior. Obviously if I believe in creation and intelligent design I would have to believe someone was behind it and I happen to be convinced by the evidence that it is God. It doesn't bother me if you don't believe and I will not try to convince you. Do I ever try and push it on you? No. You need to look inward at yourself and ask yourself why you have this axe to grind. Why you feel the need - the passion that drives you - to insult, belittle, ostrisize, condemn Christians just for what they believe. That's pure bigotry.
I doubt you are that naive to REALLY think that there's no concentrated effort to force the Bible, Intelligent Design and Creationism into Public Schools nationwide.

Johnson is best known as one of the founders of the intelligent design movement, principal architect of the Wedge Strategy, author of the Santorum Amendment, and one of the ID movement's most prolific authors. Johnson is co-founder and program advisor of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC).

Johnson has described the wedge strategy as:
"We are taking an intuition most people have (the belief in God) and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."[47]
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."[39]
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johns...

Prominent Institute campaigns have been to 'Teach the Controversy' and to allow 'Critical Analysis of Evolution'. Other campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that there is a link from evolution to ideologies such as Nazism and eugenics. These three claims are all publicised in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

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

I do not "Hate" anyone. Much less Christians. If you want to worship the deity of your choice and think that the Univese is 6000 years old, with Adam and Eve and the talking snake, Noah and the SS Ark, along with your fellow believers -- go for it, and be well.

But it is nonsense. It is a fairy tale. Leave these threads and immerse yourself in your fantasies and leave the rest of us alone who prefer the grandeur and incredible wonder that is real science. Science that MOST Christians take as bringing themselves closer to God.

But YOU insist on the literal adherence to a 3500 year-old book.

Like I said -- Be well. But don't insist that the rest of us share in your delusion.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min replaytime 117,422
Darwin on the rocks 21 min The Dude 172
Humans DID evolve from apes! 26 min Daz Ma Taz 3
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 1 hr John K 3
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 5 hr Zog Has-fallen 657
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 7 hr The Dude 14
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr polymath257 137,376

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE