Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113534 Jan 4, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
You sure walk and talk like a drug induced duck..
Just saying
By the way, I can't wait for just sayin and amazing to go out of style
I know what you mean with just sayin, but I still like amazing and won't give it up till they pry it out of my cold dead fingers.
what

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113535 Jan 4, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, some very, very smart people end up with a short straw in the personality department, but I think it is an over-used stereotype. I suspect that about the same percent of folks who would be happy to get a B+ in any subject might also pull a short straw for personality.

I was lucky enough to have landed lead or supervisor jobs for almost all of my working life. I'm no genius, but I just fit in well being in charge of teams. And I had the good fortune of overseeing the productivity of many folks who were way smarter than me. As a general rule, they had bigger fish to fry than I could ever hope to catch, so they were happy to help me sort out complicated matters any time I asked for help. But of course, there were a very small percent who were stuck at entry level clerical work for the rest of their life because their only real skill was getting A's in college. Those were the ones who gave me the most trouble.
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.
what

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113536 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>So why do you fill in that blank with a non-answer? "God dun it" doesn't answer anything, it's an assertion, and one that's lacking in any evidence so far. Scientists love not knowing, it's one of the reasons they become scientists, because everything they don't know is something they can discover. But your recitation of religious canards and creationists' follies betray that you are not interested in learning, but more interested in asserting things and pretending to know more than you do. Evolution addresses life that is, genesis addresses how things come into being. There are many abiogenesis hypothesis, and the scientific ones are showing some promising results, but those are based on evidence, unlike the abiogensis assertions made in religion.

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.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#113537 Jan 4, 2013
what wrote:
<quoted text>
You said I have a smart mouth..thanks..and another thanks for reminding me I have to go to the VA on Monday and jerk off in a cup
So, Monday is "date night"?
what

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113538 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Have you spoken to a Muslim on scientific matters? There are a few interviews of Dawkins doing just that, pretty fascinating. No one once claimed that they were good people, just that creationism is almost entirely a christian fallacy, and that is correct.
Kitten, if you only knew how many Muslims I've spoken to on life religion etc. I talked to many in Iraq and Kuwait. I have great pictures of ninevah, very few people have been there.
what

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113539 Jan 4, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>I use "spirit" as a term loosely translating to be a sense of well-being. Like you, I don't believe in magic, but I'm sure that a bit of chocolate now and then adds flavor to knowledge.
I've overdosed on chocolate many times, that's why I've had to suffer through eating fiber one bars
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113540 Jan 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You admit it is not possible to observe macroevolution? I don't care if Lenski got to 1 trillion generations, the E.coli would still be just that, E.coli. There is way too many mechanisms at work to prevent it from changing into something it is not. The nested hierarchy indicates a common design/common designer just like the universal genetic code. This is so obvious. The only way you can prove NDE is to demonstrate a macro-change contemporaneously and so far, all efforts have failed at that and there is no hope of it ever being achieved (similar to abiogenesis).
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113541 Jan 4, 2013
So anyway Cowboy, it's not only a new month, but a new Mayan calendar! A new age!!!

(ahem)

Why do you accept Sanford as a reliable authority when you know of his religious bias which requires him to throw objectivity (and pretty much the whole of science) out the window in favour of his religious beliefs as a YEC? Why do you accept the words of other creationists who also begin with a theological bias, like Dembski, Behe and Denton? Why do you accept the views of Dembski who is a mathematician (not a biologist), and not a very prolific one at that?

Sanford is a YEC. Dembski is an OEC. Behe accepts common descent, but thinks evolution couldn't happen without Goddidit, and that God might be dead. Denton accepts evolution and doesn't support whatever it is you think he does because your info is out of date. Yet most creationists happily continue to quotemine him anyway. And Francis Collins accepts evolution. So why do you accept the words of all these people when they ALL conflict with each other?

If genetic entropy is a problem for evolution, please explain why the human population appears to be propagating without too much problem. Please explain why DNA points to common descent and if it doesn't then please provide an alternative. Please explain why the fossil record points to common descent and if it doesn't then please provide an alternative. Please explain why orthologous ERV's point to common descent and if they don't then please provide an alternative. Please explain why fused chromosome 2 points to common descent and if it doesn't then please provide an alternative. Please explain why the fossil record, DNA and orthologous ERV's fall into the same nested hierarchies, pointing to common descent and if they don't then please provide an alternative. Don't forget to let us know why you fail to address the fact that the flagellum's status as IC was compromised by Yersinia pestis.

Previously you have hinted at Intelligent Design. What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of ID? Who or what is the designer and how can we tell? What mechanism did it use to do whatever it is you think it did and how can we tell? How is "design" quantified? When and where did it do it? What observations can be made in regards to ID? Why is this (potentially all-powerful universe-creating) designer apparently incapable of evolution and how were these limits determined scientifically? What useful scientific predictions does ID make? How can it be tested? How can it be falsified? Why do you always lie & ignore anything theologically inconvenient?

(sound of crickets putting jet engines on cars)

Uhuh, thought so.

Here's to ANOTHER happy new year!!!

:-)

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113542 Jan 4, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>
If the scientist can't answer the questions about holes or missing links, how am I supposed to. I guess if i knew the answer to the holes and missing links, then there would be no holes and the links wouldn't be missing. But you must know the answer so enlighten me!
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113543 Jan 4, 2013
obestiy wrote:
<quoted text>
so you actually take the bible literally?
Hey SOMEBODY has to, since even the creationists don't.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113544 Jan 4, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>
If the scientist can't answer the questions about holes or missing links, how am I supposed to. I guess if i knew the answer to the holes and missing links, then there would be no holes and the links wouldn't be missing. But you must know the answer so enlighten me!
No problem. "Missing link" is nothing more than a 100 year old ignorant creationist argument based on their own misunderstandings.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113545 Jan 4, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutations are changes in existing genes, but evolution doesn't explain where the first brand new gene came from. Google penis worm, an interesting article pops up, I think you might find it interesting. It's not about a penis by the way.
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113546 Jan 4, 2013
wtf wrote:
<quoted text>
He is not correct. Muslims take the Quran literally and are creationist. They are reluctant to accept anything that goes against the Quran at all. If you think gays and transgendered people are treated like crap in the USA, you should see what happens to them over there. Didn't you hear about the Muslim that murdered his own daughter for getting raped. I guess you really don't know crap about all these religions.
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113547 Jan 4, 2013
Danzig wrote:
Check out a new philosophy with sense, it's called Alkuajatus
Philosophy beyond the personal subjective is worth its weight in poop. Reality doesn't care what philosophy has to say.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#113548 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.
Creationists demand we provide a step by step, mutation by mutation, organism by organism account for the entire 4 billion year history of biological life on Earth and if we can't do that then science is wrong.

In which case I say if they can't tell us what Jesus had for breakfast on Thursday 17th April then creationism is wrong.

Plus they have it easy, they only got 6,000 years to worry about.
what

Rancho Cordova, CA

#113549 Jan 4, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>So, Monday is "date night"?
It has to be the hand, I was told no pulling out, it might contaminate the sample.

“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

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) 4 min DanFromSmithville 168,766
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 3 hr dirtclod 6,213
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Chimney1 19,766
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 20 hr Paul Porter1 141,815
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 23 hr Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Thu Paul Porter1 561
three preventive measures for PID Thu qiu 1
More from around the web