Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
110,601 - 110,620 of 172,504 Comments Last updated 47 min ago
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
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!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 Theory Facing Crisis 13 min Infinite Force 194
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min MikeF 115,171
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 136,248
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 5 hr ChristineM 300
Science News (Sep '13) Thu positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Wed Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••