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

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113393 Jan 3, 2013
See? It is so obvious from this exchange that Darwinism isn't about science. It's about a belief in an ideology. They don't need any evidence. I asked if macroevolution was ever observed. No evidence.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113394 Jan 3, 2013
Even Richard Dawkins says it can't be observed!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#113395 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
See? It is so obvious from this exchange that Darwinism isn't about science. It's about a belief in an ideology. They don't need any evidence. I asked if macroevolution was ever observed. No evidence.
No, it is obvious from this exchange that your village is missing an idiot.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#113396 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Even Richard Dawkins says it can't be observed!
That's probably because the way you have it defined, it is not a valid concept having nothing to do with Evolution.
One way or another

United States

#113397 Jan 3, 2013
All that BS and BS as evidence. Gotta love the morons.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113398 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
See? It is so obvious from this exchange that Darwinism isn't about science. It's about a belief in an ideology. They don't need any evidence. I asked if macroevolution was ever observed. No evidence.

No evidence that you have allowed yourself to acknowledge. The actual information presented to you, however, has been akin to a global deluge.

You like to pretend things never happened but they did.

You like to pretend you never lose, but you always do.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113399 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Even Richard Dawkins says it can't be observed!

Quote please. And in context for a change.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113400 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Even Richard Dawkins says it can't be observed!

Here are some things Dawkins has actually said:

“Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order."

"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity."

“We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realize that we are apes.”

“Why would an all-powerful creator decide to plant his carefully crafted species on islands and continents in exactly the appropriate pattern to suggest, irresistibly, that they had evolved and dispersed from the site of their evolution?”

“Even if it were true that evolution, or the teaching of evolution, encouraged immorality that would not imply that the theory of evolution was false.”

Deal with those then we can deal with your fantasy quotes.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#113401 Jan 3, 2013
I declare victory regarding the (il)legitimacy of creation science On the grounds that although UC refuses to concede honestly, he does so unwittingly and implicitely by irrational deception and avoidance.

“What trolls???”

Level 1

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#113402 Jan 3, 2013
Only creationists haven't evolved.

They don't believe in evolution for a good reason. It's because they haven't evolved, they still have the intelligence of a primitive ape.

Only we have evolved to our present form of intelligence.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#113403 Jan 3, 2013
Pinky And Ze Brain wrote:
Only creationists haven't evolved.
They don't believe in evolution for a good reason. It's because they haven't evolved, they still have the intelligence of a primitive ape.
Only we have evolved to our present form of intelligence.
Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?

“What trolls???”

Level 1

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#113404 Jan 3, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?
Yes, it's the fact that creationists are a relic of history. They're bloody storytellers, yet some think that their stories are actually true. Unfortunately for them, they're still stuck in the primeval ages, believing in magic, mysticism, and bloody gods!

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113405 Jan 3, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
I don't remember the exact quote, but Asimov said that the essential ingredient for good science fiction is to start with an impossible premise, then make it plausable.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#113406 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
where did i say i was religious and where did i say god dunnit?
Oh, right...you're one of those "I'm not religious, I'm Christian" numbskulls. I'm not superstitious, I just believe in nonsense that has no basis in reality or evidence to support it.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113407 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
Someone please post solid evidence that something came from nothing. 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. Kitten, I think you could be the one to answer these questions or post links to answer them...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?
The point is, there isn't any actual evidence to base a reasonable theory of extra terrestrial origin of life. And the theory of evolutlion does not answer, nor does it attempt to answer the question of the origin of life.

Maybe aliens did it. That sounds better than goddidit, but a theory must have some faulsifiable evidence for it to be anything but speculation.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#113408 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
first off ive never even read a holy book and dont plan to..without testing it, it is useless, but i can come up with many ideas in my head about how we got here, all the what ifs and be satisfied that i may never know the correct answer and maybe we are not supposed to know for some reason..it doesnt take away fromm me going to work and making a living, my family and i going on vacation, mowing the lawn, cooking dinner, cleaning the crapper, and just surviving. everyday life still goes on and i can have fun drinking scotch with friends and trying to solve the mysteries of the world.
So, you have no intellectual curiosity and don't care why things work as they do. As long as you've got food, water, a roof, and a toilet, that's all you care about, and you don't care how those things happen, either. Doesn't that strike you as a rather shallow way to live? Is that what you'd teach your children to do with their lives? Or, would you hope that they developed their minds beyond basic survival and base pleasures?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113409 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
It's seems like this thread started out as one thing and then evolved into many other things. I thought that would make some of you very happy, but I guess not.
It had to evolve into many other things, otherwise this thread would have been extinct long ago. I'm ok with that.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113410 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
Some of you are to smart for your own good..you can talk a good talk and recite everything you read in books and online yet most of you probably can't check your tire pressure, change your oil, pump your own gas, start a lawn mower..I bet none of you have any basic survival skills..when crap hits the fan in this world you will be the first to go down, crying in your closet gripping your laptops, calculators, and Darwin books. While talking about human origins is fun and the biggest mystery ever, it really doesn't matter. I don't see tigers, bears, or any other animal worried about it..they just want to eat, sleep and play a little bit. I will always wonder why we are more complex and different than all other animals..what's the point?
I don't think we are more complex and different than all other animals. True, our brains have more conceptual ability, but each of the many varieties of life brings something to the table that others cannot do. I was always amazed at my cat's ability of total spacial awareness, every step more perfect than the best human ballerina. And birds in flight. And the power, grace and nobility of lions.

Our conceptual ability gives us the power to command other life, but that in itself does not make us more complex or even superior to other living things.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113411 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. 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.
If you are looking for a fish giving birth to a frog, that would be a strawman argument. But to say that frogs have some fish ancestry, that would be pointing out that microevolution is how species eventually branch out and become different organisms. Each generation of each species is in transition.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113412 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?
I'd agree that the creationist version of macroevolution is absurd.

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) 2 min ChromiuMan 142,737
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min dirtclod 14,682
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 2 hr ChromiuMan 960
Why natural selection can't work 2 hr Chimney1 28
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 2 hr dirtclod 801
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish c... 21 hr paul porter 3
Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent De... (May '13) Wed Kong_ 455
More from around the web