Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179707 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

#113550 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironically not what I was attempting to do. Since he didn't attempt to counter it I think he actually understood what I was saying, which may be a rare thing but give credit where due. So long as he doesn't attempt to counter it, it demonstrates that he has acknowledge his mistake, as far as I am concerned.

By that standard he agrees with 75% of everything I have ever wrote here.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113551 Jan 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm actually going to the beach! It's sunny and 80s!

I officially hate you.
what

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113552 Jan 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Funny, I recall seeing a video on youtube with an Islamic scientist having an argument with a literalistic Muslim over whether or not the Earth was flat. There are, believe it or not, still some areas of the Middle East which aren't *completely* fundamentalist.
Then by the "true muslims" he shall be beheaded. You should go over there, I'm sure they would love to talk to you. They are a very peaceful people. I do have to say I enjoyed my time with the Kurds. I ate some wonderful food, they even taught me to dance
what

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113553 Jan 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

This may have been mentioned before.
So it only relies on that very first gene mutating, but doesn't care where it came from? Even though knowing where it came from would solve a huge mystery
One way or another

United States

#113554 Jan 4, 2013
Anything the Evo morons can't answer, they don't need.
Mother Mary

Chicago, IL

#113555 Jan 4, 2013
Pinky And The 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.
Go past our solar system....lay down the good book and think. It takes a human with brains and intelligence to understand whats really out there millions of miles from this spec. Religion stops thinking at the surface......Heaven/hell. Go beyond and be alive..........
hehe

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113556 Jan 4, 2013
Mother Mary wrote:
<quoted text>Go past our solar system....lay down the good book and think. It takes a human with brains and intelligence to understand whats really out there millions of miles from this spec. Religion stops thinking at the surface......Heaven/hell. Go beyond and be alive..........
I find you to be a very interesting person.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#113557 Jan 4, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Anything the Evo morons can't answer, they don't need.
Ever get bored of ....... well being you ?
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#113558 Jan 4, 2013
what wrote:
<quoted text>
So it only relies on that very first gene mutating, but doesn't care where it came from? Even though knowing where it came from would solve a huge mystery
So do you reject all of science, physics ----> chemistry ---> biology etc (the ----> are to indicate a progression) because we cant definitively define universal origins ?

You are correct in that knowing origins in any field would be a huge bonus, but nonetheless does NOT detract from science that explains what happens after.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113559 Jan 4, 2013
what wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of all these posters on here I thought you of all people would know I never said the god dunnit crap..you are reading into oogah boogah and pinkies BS to much.
No, I'm just sick of the "god dun it" non-answer.

Anyway, I was the one that perfected that phrase. So meh. They copied me.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113560 Jan 4, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Anything the Evo morons can't answer, they don't need.
You do realize that you just insulted creationists, right?

We can live with not knowing, you fear the unknown so much you have to make it up.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113561 Jan 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
By that standard he agrees with 75% of everything I have ever wrote here.
It's possible. Unless someone states that they disagree, you can safely assume they do agree.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113562 Jan 4, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have fossil evidence of every generation of any species and following those generations to include the path to new species. Creationists claim that this constitutes "missing links". But the ToE does not depend on counting every generation. The evidence is in following the branches.
Uh oh, now you've done it, you admitted to not knowing, and the creationists think that it's a "sin" to be honest.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#113563 Jan 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Common design as an explanation of nested hierarchies is merely taking the predictions of evolution and pretending they're your own. But that still leaves you with the problem that you haven't been able to explain for two years, why would an all-powerful universe-creating creator limit itself to common design principles? Common design is done for only two reasons - to save time and resources. Things which an eternal omnipotent entity has an infinite supply of. And why in a manner that makes it LOOK like life evolved? After all, common design principles STILL don't need to adhere to nested hierarchies. Re-use wings on a pig? Common design. Cats with compound eyes? Common design. Centaurs? Common design. Just like putting a jet engine on a car. It can still be done. Jet engines don't HAVE to be for planes only. Our designs don't stick to nested hierarchies either.
Why would God limit Himself? Are you kidding? How did He limit Himself? The number of different plants and animals is staggering. The number of stars is mind boggling. Why would ask such a question? But just like any field endearvored by Man, He most likely employed common design principles. Just as a contractor can read any engineer's or archetect's plans, the genetic code was used universally. This explanation comes naturally from what we experience.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113564 Jan 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would God limit Himself? Are you kidding? How did He limit Himself? The number of different plants and animals is staggering. The number of stars is mind boggling. Why would ask such a question? But just like any field endearvored by Man, He most likely employed common design principles. Just as a contractor can read any engineer's or archetect's plans, the genetic code was used universally. This explanation comes naturally from what we experience.
"most likely" that is the most honest thing you have said on the subject, but then you go and spoil it with the last sentence. Nothing is self evident, nothing is. Everything that exists has evidence, it leaves evidence as it exists, so to assert something exists you must present that evidence, otherwise it is simply wishful thinking or fantasy. All evidence suggests evolution caused speciation, there is nothing else it suggests.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#113565 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"most likely" that is the most honest thing you have said on the subject, but then you go and spoil it with the last sentence. Nothing is self evident, nothing is. Everything that exists has evidence, it leaves evidence as it exists, so to assert something exists you must present that evidence, otherwise it is simply wishful thinking or fantasy. All evidence suggests evolution caused speciation, there is nothing else it suggests.
I agree evolution caused some speciation. But speciation is the grey area between kinds. For example, Dogs-wolves-coyotes have not even reached it yet but horses-donkeys have begun to. But these are all still within their own kind. Actually on balance, there is quite a lot of evidence pointing to creation/against macroevolution. I am sure you've seen my 99 Reasons. In fact I believe the evidence is much stronger for creation. The evidence hand fits creation like a glove. But NDE is one gap or contradiction after another. I know I know, but all the scientist disagree. I don't follow the crowd. I seek my own answers. I used to believe in evolution 100% but after many years of study I changed my mind entirely. No one influenced me. I simply read up on the material. Dozens and dozens of books on the subject from both sides of the equation. There's just no evidence that one type of organism ever changed into a different type. There's no evidence of any genetic mutation or genetic drift in a population leading to a different kind. Then you have all the living fossils. Then you have the basic fact of entropy and the information in the genome. The universal genetic code. To me, it screams out loud design-design-design!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113566 Jan 5, 2013
what wrote:
<quoted text>
So it only relies on that very first gene mutating, but doesn't care where it came from? Even though knowing where it came from would solve a huge mystery

Yes, no.
Correct.

No one is saying we don't want to know. No one does not enjoy speculating on this issue, but it is not at all vital in our understanding of (biological) evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113567 Jan 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree evolution caused some speciation. But speciation is the grey area between kinds. For example, Dogs-wolves-coyotes have not even reached it yet but horses-donkeys have begun to. But these are all still within their own kind.

Thank you for admitting macroevolution even if you cannot say the word yet.

What stops current creatures from completely speciation when all the millions of animals that have lived before modern times have speciated?(Macroevolved).
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Actually on balance, there is quite a lot of evidence pointing to creation/against macroevolution.

I would love for you to provide some. So far all you have is a combination of pseudoscience and stuff that actually supports evolution.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> I am sure you've seen my 99 Reasons.

That is what I was mainly referring to in the above. I could rename it to "99 reasons for Evolution", rewrite the text so that it better conforms to what science has actually discovered and it would be a decent (though not nearly great) thesis for evolution.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> In fact I believe the evidence is much stronger for creation. The evidence hand fits creation like a glove.

In fact I believe the evidence for the purple ping-pong ball theory of the universe is much stronger. The evidence hand fits PPPB theory like a glove.

So there you go.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> But NDE is one gap or contradiction after another.

Why do you keep talking about Near Death Experiences (NDE)? Is Creationism having one?

Your trying to change what NDE means isn't going to happen.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> I know I know, but all the scientist disagree. I don't follow the crowd. I seek my own answers.

Because that is what idiots do. Look at Psycho. He is the poster child for the idea of blindfolding himself and going on a long walk down a short road that ends at a 300 ft. cliff. You guys could be intellectual twins.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> I used to believe in evolution 100% but after many years of study I changed my mind entirely.

Years of studying creotardistic claptrap will do that to you. If you spent 1/2 as much time reading real science on these issues you would be 1/1000th as confused about them.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> No one influenced me. I simply read up on the material.

LOL. This is Joke, Know? No one in this world can say that there is much of anything that other people have not influenced them on. And those influences have not taught you to think logically, but rather to eschew it like the plague.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Dozens and dozens of books on the subject from both sides of the equation.

There are plenty of books on the Loch Ness monster, a lot on big foot, on alien abductions,...... Creationism is not as scientific as any of those things, but whatever floats your boat.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> There's just no evidence that one type of organism ever changed into a different type.

Outright lie.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> There's no evidence of any genetic mutation or genetic drift in a population leading to a different kind.

LOL
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Then you have all the living fossils.

How do the existence of living fossils help your argument? Hint: they don't.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Then you have the basic fact of entropy and the information in the genome.

How bad did we bust that idea down? Even the research of Sanfords own colleagues refutes him!!!!! How hysterical is that!?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> The universal genetic code.

You mean the universal genetic "code"?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113568 Jan 5, 2013
what wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with the last few sentences..I never finished college because it was taking time from me starting a business. I have to deal with architects and engineers from the state who sat in a class but never worked on a job site..sure they got A's in college but have no clue how these systems work in the real world.
I also did not finish college--for slightly different reasons. I was going for a BA in Chemical Dependency Counseling, but by the time I got to my last quarter for an AA degree I realized that the last thing in the world I would want to be was a chem dep counselor. What was I thinking?! I've never had a problem with alchohol or drugs, and though I did very well with the academics of drug counseling I knew that I would never understand it on any bone deep level like my peers who had been to hell and back.

But I did learn a lot about group dynamics and also gained an appreciation for the discipline of listening to people as they voice their opinions and problems. Those skills gave me a good step ahead in the ordinary workplace. Any time a team lead was needed I was a shoe-in for the job.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113569 Jan 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree evolution caused some speciation. But speciation is the grey area between kinds. For example, Dogs-wolves-coyotes have not even reached it yet but horses-donkeys have begun to. But these are all still within their own kind. Actually on balance, there is quite a lot of evidence pointing to creation/against macroevolution. I am sure you've seen my 99 Reasons. In fact I believe the evidence is much stronger for creation. The evidence hand fits creation like a glove. But NDE is one gap or contradiction after another. I know I know, but all the scientist disagree. I don't follow the crowd. I seek my own answers. I used to believe in evolution 100% but after many years of study I changed my mind entirely. No one influenced me. I simply read up on the material. Dozens and dozens of books on the subject from both sides of the equation. There's just no evidence that one type of organism ever changed into a different type. There's no evidence of any genetic mutation or genetic drift in a population leading to a different kind. Then you have all the living fossils. Then you have the basic fact of entropy and the information in the genome. The universal genetic code. To me, it screams out loud design-design-design!
That's just it, species, the concept itself, is a gray area, the entire notion is artificially constructed, there is no discernible boundary other than genetic compatibility. But then you go back into the denial of evidence. First, "kind" is not a scientific term because I have three kinds of pens in my apartment, they're all pens, but they're all different kinds of pens. I have two kinds of computers, they can both run the exact same software too, but they're vastly different. There are millions of kinds of birds, most can't interbreed, some can, some can't fly, some can swim. "Kind" is a generic descriptive, not a scientific one.

Then you continue with fallacies that have already been addressed so many times it's redundant, and you have ignored all evidence countering your fallacies. The only things that "scream design" have labels, where is your production tag?

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) 2 min zebra 216,707
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min One way or another 48,531
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 3 hr Timmee 9
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Into The Night 23,503
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr scientia potentia... 154,689
Science News (Sep '13) 9 hr _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
More from around the web