Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 173,750

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
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.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#113413 Jan 3, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
if science of human origins were full of absolute truth, there would be no arguing in the scientific community.
There is NO argument in the science community. The only argument is with you guys...the creotards

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#113414 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?
While I’m sure a lot of people are like that, but I happen to know a few freethinkers and I believe they are above average in many ‘skills’.

I myself can not only pump gas and change oil; I can replace whole engines and all the external parts as well, and do brakes jobs both drum and disk. I can also fly a private plane, and I am an accredited scuba diver. I grew up camping with my family, and can navigate in the woods quite easily, and make fire without matches or lighter.

Oh, and my first computer was the Vic 20 when it first came out in the 80’s, and I have a pretty big library…the better to learn things.

Not trying to brag here…just showing how wrong you can be if you judge with not enough data.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113415 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.
But what IS it that could or should be taught in a history type class about aliens?

What is it that can be taught?

I'm not saying that speculation is a bad thing. But speculation should not be confused with actual information.

Here's a funny thing. I'm sure you would also see the humor in it. Several years ago when I was a supervisor overseeing the work of a clerical crew, someone turned on the radio to one of those call-in shows. The guest was a catholic priest who claimed to be an expert on pergatory. Most folks listened just for laughs, but a few took it very seriously. People called in for an hour and a half asking questions about what pergatory was like. The funny thing was that the priest kept giving answers as if he actually knew something about it, as if it were something real that he could have studied.

Can you see, we have the same problem with aliens?

“What trolls???”

Level 1

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#113416 Jan 3, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
There is NO argument in the science community. The only argument is with you guys...the creotards
They haven't evolved. That's why they don't believe in evolution.

Their intelligence certainly hasn't evolved.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113417 Jan 3, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, I wouldn't expect that. But for example, the Lenski long-term experiments with E.coli has seen over 50,000 generations now and no trace of them evolving into anything other than varieties of E.coli. If these were chimp generations, you would have "macroevolution" observed with chimps to humans by now. But nothing at all with E.coli or plants or any organsim. All I am saying is, you've got this theory of evolution that is impossible to observe which then logically takes it outside the confines of the scientific method. You may be theorizing about history with fossils and genes but cannot observe it happening.
Mugwump

UK

#113418 Jan 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I wouldn't expect that. But for example, the Lenski long-term experiments with E.coli has seen over 50,000 generations now and no trace of them evolving into anything other than varieties of E.coli. If these were chimp generations, you would have "macroevolution" observed with chimps to humans by now. But nothing at all with E.coli or plants or any organsim. All I am saying is, you've got this theory of evolution that is impossible to observe which then logically takes it outside the confines of the scientific method. You may be theorizing about history with fossils and genes but cannot observe it happening.
And to re-iterate the point, this means creation science is (by your logic) outside the realms of real science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113419 Jan 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I wouldn't expect that. But for example, the Lenski long-term experiments with E.coli has seen over 50,000 generations now and no trace of them evolving into anything other than varieties of E.coli. If these were chimp generations, you would have "macroevolution" observed with chimps to humans by now. But nothing at all with E.coli or plants or any organsim. All I am saying is, you've got this theory of evolution that is impossible to observe which then logically takes it outside the confines of the scientific method. You may be theorizing about history with fossils and genes but cannot observe it happening.
You just start ranting and never check your facts.
e.coli has gone through a lot of generations (which provides resolution, not MORE evolution). Chimps evolve no faster nor slower than ecoli. Where you picked up this mythassumptions I have no idea, only that it does not come from established evolution literature. You are what you read and apparently you only read crap.
Further evolution is even more observable in the genetic record. Speciation (= macroevolution).
So, macroevolution IS observable (vs. your lies to the contrary). Since it is observable we developed a theory to explain it. We call the theory that explains the observed facts of evolution 'The Theory of Evolution'. Look it up some time.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#113420 Jan 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
You just start ranting and never check your facts.
e.coli has gone through a lot of generations (which provides resolution, not MORE evolution). Chimps evolve no faster nor slower than ecoli. Where you picked up this mythassumptions I have no idea, only that it does not come from established evolution literature. You are what you read and apparently you only read crap.
Further evolution is even more observable in the genetic record. Speciation (= macroevolution).
So, macroevolution IS observable (vs. your lies to the contrary). Since it is observable we developed a theory to explain it. We call the theory that explains the observed facts of evolution 'The Theory of Evolution'. Look it up some time.
I watched the grass in front of my house for over an hour today and was unable to observe any growth. According to Cowboy Observability Theory, I can now throw away my lawn mower. Yay!

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) 1 hr deutscher Nationa... 116,685
Are there any dinosaur fossils of their genital... 2 hr cris 1
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 2 hr cris 1
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 4 hr Patrick 332
Difficulty Loading Topix Pages 9 hr Gillette 8
New review critical of "Origins" 9 hr DanFromSmithville 21
Need clarification on evolution 16 hr Dogen 7
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••