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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113356 Jan 3, 2013
Mother Mary wrote:
<quoted text>Kong take away all the cable/TV trash about ET/God. Forget everything "They" told you was the "Truth". Now, humans knew the earth was flat....its not. Humans know there is a God....really? Humans know there are to many gallaxies to comprehend whats really out there.....Just that statement alone should make every religious human stop and "Think"..........Loo k how far humans technology has evolved.........If another advanced race had just 100 years on this species.....Wow! The God story just doesnt make sense.

Why would an advanced alien species be even slightly interested in humans? At most they would pick up a few of us for their version of a zoo.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#113357 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm on a slab, but sugarplum fairies dance in my head
Those who can convince us of absurdity can lead us to commit atrocities.~Voltaire
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#113358 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let's see about that. Fair is fair. But first, do agree that macroevolution has not been observed?
No, observations of speciation have been observered

http://www.mgc.edu/faculty/cready/evolcreat/s...

So now lets see about my original point shall we?

Are you employing double standards w.r.t. Creation science since the creation event or YOUR diety has never been directly observed?

Or do you want to dodge my point (for the umpteenth time)

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113360 Jan 3, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
No, observations of speciation have been observered
http://www.mgc.edu/faculty/cready/evolcreat/s...
So now lets see about my original point shall we?
Are you employing double standards w.r.t. Creation science since the creation event or YOUR diety has never been directly observed?
Or do you want to dodge my point (for the umpteenth time)
No. Speciation is NOT macroevolution. Now I'll ask you again. Has macroevolution ever been observed?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#113361 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let's see about that. Fair is fair. But first, do agree that macroevolution has not been observed?
Not true at all. From; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

"...Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem, for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.

The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be...."

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#113362 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Macroevolution. You may not like the word. But it does separate fact from fantasy. Tell you what. Answer this question. Has a change from one kind of organsim into another different kind of organism ever been observed? If not, then it hasn't been observed.
Evolution isn't an event, it's a process. The results of the process are observable and ToE gives an explanation. Pretending that nothing could ever have happened without direct observation just makes you look more stupid (as if every inch of THAT territory had not already been explored).
Urban Cowboy wrote:
We haven't observed macroevolution. And if we haven't observed it then it's not even in the realm of science. It's not even science. It's an ideology. Or a religion. And a strong one at that.
I thought Marksman was the only one stupid enough to promote this argument.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#113363 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Speciation is NOT macroevolution. Now I'll ask you again. Has macroevolution ever been observed?
Define macroevolution

Then answer my question (saves time don't you think to answer BOTH questions in one post)- has the creation event and / or YOUR deity been directly observed.

If not, then how can you legitimize creation science that has this as a over-ruling presupposition?

I know you won't answer this as you never do (hint : your next step is to get all 'Jimbo' on me)

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#113364 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Speciation is NOT macroevolution. Now I'll ask you again. Has macroevolution ever been observed?
Then macroevolution as you are defining it makes no sense and is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution involves speciation many times over hundreds of millions and even billions of years.

Only a religitard would be looking for a bird to give birth to something half mammal half bird. Nothing like this ever happened.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113365 Jan 3, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Define macroevolution
Then answer my question (saves time don't you think to answer BOTH questions in one post)- has the creation event and / or YOUR deity been directly observed.
If not, then how can you legitimize creation science that has this as a over-ruling presupposition?
I know you won't answer this as you never do (hint : your next step is to get all 'Jimbo' on me)
I already did.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#113366 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
Should creationism be taught in school..why not?? Did I specify a science classroom, no I did not.
That's where creationists want it taught.
obesity wrote:
Ancient alien theory along with other theories should be taught in schools..it makes people think. I never said it should be taught in a SCIENCE class.
In which class should it be taught?

How does it make people think?
obesity wrote:
"They"always talk about evolution and Lucy etc, but there are always holes in the theory of evolution.
Could you identify one of those "holes"?
obesity wrote:
Obviously we came from a common ancestor, but how do we know where exactly that common ancestor came from??
We can look for commonalities in DNA to determine what the most recent common ancestor looked like.
obesity wrote:
Algae?
Nope, more likely something like a very simple bacteria-like organism.
obesity wrote:
It could very well be from a race of beings that are from somewhere other than earth.
And the evidence for this is *what*, exactly?
obesity wrote:
They used to teach as fact that we came from monkeys and that has been debunked.
Really? When exactly was that debunked?
obesity wrote:
Evolution simply means change
In the context of biological science, it means much more than that.
LowellGuy

Union, NJ

#113367 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, im open to all ideas and i dont fill in holes..i say "what if." as far as i know our entire universe could simply be a booger in a giant beings nose and that giant beings universe may be a dandruff flake on another giants beings head..you cant say that it is or isnt true..you can just assume that it is not and say that its scientific truth. i do find it very arrogant for humans to believe they are the only life form out there.
What if the Bible and all other holy books and sacred stories didn't exist and all you had to go on was demonstrable reality? Then, you'd use science. "What if" is fine, but without testing it, it's useless.
obesity

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113368 Jan 3, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Those who can convince us of absurdity can lead us to commit atrocities.~Voltaire
HAHA, thats pretty funny..those people must be very weak minded. if someone commits atrocities they have only themselves to blame..

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#113369 Jan 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Drew, the point in Asimov's Foundation that I was making was that he made the assumption that with enough knowledge, prediction would be close to perfect. SF? Yes. But Asimov was also a Ph.D in molecular biology, writing pre-Lorenz.
Oh, c'mon, the main point here is that Asimov was a *fiction* writer (and a good one). He knew what made for a good story. That doesn't mean that he thought that it *would* happen in the future, or even that it *could*! Just because a science fiction writer uses faster-than-light travel or time travel as a plot device doesn't mean that the writer seriously believes that humans will discover how to do it.
Chimney1 wrote:
If we go back to the early days of Chaos theory, Lorenz assumed that predicting the climate using variables to 3 decimal places would give results approximately equal to the same predictive model using 4 decimal places. He was genuinely surprised when that proved not to be the case, to the point where he thought there was an error. The models correlated closely for a few days than followed radically different predictive paths.
Yes, scientists discovered how significant the initial conditions were to the accuracy of the prediction of future events. But that doesn't mean that before they realized that, that they thought that future scientists would be able to make perfect predictions. Better predictions? Yes. Perfect ones? No.
Chimney1 wrote:
Wiki -
"In 1814, Laplace published what is usually known as the first articulation of causal or scientific determinism:[39]
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities[40]"
Note the world view embodied in that statement, by one of the great mathematicians and scientists of the time. It is not to say that he imagined we would ever reach that point of supreme intelligence and perfect prediction, but that such a view was conceivable and we would become better and better at predicting given more accurate information.
And there is nothing wrong with claiming that, with more information and faster processors, we can make better predictions. Perfection is an asymptote that we can approach but never reach.

I'm reminded of Kenneth Miller's comment during the Dover trial that not every statement made by a scientist is intended to be a scientific statement. Laplace isn't make a scientific statement. He's making a philosophical one. And if Laplace, as you pointed out, is not claiming that humans *would* reach such a point in their predictive power, then I fail to see how his statement is relevant to this argument. So far, you've presented no evidence that any scientist ever thought that we *would* be at such a point in the future.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#113370 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
Someone please post solid evidence that something came from nothing.
And this is relevant to evolution how?
obesity wrote:
Someone please post complete solid evidence ( no holes ) of evolution including all the missing links which must have been discovered and I just haven't heard about it yet.
Which links do you think are missing?
obesity wrote:
by the way certain species could have been " engineered "by a greater life form..we do it to life, why couldn't it have been done to us?
Let us know when you have any evidence that this happened.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#113371 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I already did.
Not that I recall, surely you can spare a few minutes typing to elucidate your point about the legitimacy of creation science in response to the question I have put to you?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#113372 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHA, thats pretty funny..those people must be very weak minded. if someone commits atrocities they have only themselves to blame..
Like butchering librarians, burning witches and what not. Yea, they are to blame for following such an absurd religion.
obesity

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113373 Jan 3, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
That's where creationists want it taught.
<quoted text>
In which class should it be taught?
How does it make people think?
<quoted text>
Could you identify one of those "holes"?
<quoted text>
We can look for commonalities in DNA to determine what the most recent common ancestor looked like.
<quoted text>
Nope, more likely something like a very simple bacteria-like organism.
<quoted text>
And the evidence for this is *what*, exactly?
<quoted text>
Really? When exactly was that debunked?
<quoted text>
In the context of biological science, it means much more than that.
Its should be taught in a history type class

its does make people think, just like reading all the books we had to read in english class that weren't factual. its also makes people think outside of the box and in shades of gray rather than black and white.

Evolution does mean change.

Human and apes may have a common ancestor, but we did not come from apes.

if science of human origins were full of absolute truth, there would be no arguing in the scientific community.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#113374 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
Its should be taught in a history type class
its does make people think, just like reading all the books we had to read in english class that weren't factual. its also makes people think outside of the box and in shades of gray rather than black and white.
Evolution does mean change.
Human and apes may have a common ancestor, but we did not come from apes.
if science of human origins were full of absolute truth, there would be no arguing in the scientific community.
The only "arguing" about human origins is with religitards who say "God dunnit" with magic.
obesity

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113375 Jan 3, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Like butchering librarians, burning witches and what not. Yea, they are to blame for following such an absurd religion.
no shizer sherlock, they made the choice to do these things, they made the choice to follow a certain religion..they have only themselves to blame.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#113376 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
In significant ways. They are not even in the same family.
Please define these differences as I'm not aware of any.

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) 9 min Bkitzking 164,069
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr karl44 19,044
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 9 hr Gillette 84
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 16 hr DanFromSmithville 141,352
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? Sun UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 24 Chimney1 1,871
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) May 23 Swedenforever 159
More from around the web