Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#113387 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I already did.
Do it again. Don't disappoint the boys.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#113388 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.
Well, then I am left to wonder why you even bother to post on here.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#113389 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So the wiser thing to do is to NOT follow absurd religions like Christianity. Got it!!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113390 Jan 3, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Please define these differences as I'm not aware of any.
Get a grip.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#113391 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
its very closed minded of you to think that the only people who dont hang on your every genius word are religious.
Ad hominems, is that the best you can do?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113392 Jan 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I already did.

You lost.

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.

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) 24 min TurkanaBoy 133,654
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr Charles Idemi 644
How would creationists explain... 12 hr TurkanaBoy 393
Science News (Sep '13) 13 hr positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web